Ken, your explanation seems more permissive than I had anticipated.
Your example of "32" would seem to me at risk of behaving
in unforeseen ways if, for instance, it were split up. Wouldn't it
match a string "up > 2"? Wouldn't it fail to match 3²? I guess I
thought that plain text should be mor
On 10/14/2011 11:47 AM, Joó Ádám wrote:
Peter asked for what the Unicode Consortium considers plain text, ie.
what principles it apllies when deciding whether to encode a certain
element or aspect of writing as a character. In turn, you thoroughly
explained that plain text is what the Unicode Con
Ken,
Peter asked for what the Unicode Consortium considers plain text, ie.
what principles it apllies when deciding whether to encode a certain
element or aspect of writing as a character. In turn, you thoroughly
explained that plain text is what the Unicode Consortium considered to
be plain text
On 10/13/2011 10:49 PM, Peter Cyrus wrote:
Is there a definition or guideline for the distinction between plain
text and rich text?
I think where you may be getting hung up is trying to define plain
text versus rich text in terms of the content and/or appearance of
the text (i.e. the outcome)
- Original Message -
From: Asmus Freytag
To: Shriramana Sharma
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Sent: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:20:41 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: Noticed improvement in the Code chart link
http://www.unicode.org/charts/
On 10/13/2011 10:23 AM, Shriramana S
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Bidyut Baran Chaudhuri
wrote:
>
>
> I did not get why you have written 'so called "Bengali" script' but did not
> not add 'so called' to Assamese / Kampuri / AMBM / Pub Nagari / Eastern
> Nagari scripts. Kindly enlighten.
Dear sir,
It was just a joke. No offence
6 matches
Mail list logo
