Re: Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-05 Thread Asmus Freytag
At 09:16 AM 7/2/00 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote: >The problem with the phrase "plain text ceases to be plain if you decide >that layout information needs to be encoded" is the word "layout." In >the broadest sense, line and paragraph separation could be considered >"layout," and nobody would suggest d

Re: Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-03 Thread Edward Cherlin
At 11:05 AM -0800 7/2/00, John Hudson wrote: >At 09:16 AM 7/2/00 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote: > > >The problem with the phrase "plain text ceases to be plain if you decide > >that layout information needs to be encoded" is the word "layout." In > >the broadest sense, line and paragraph separation cou

Re: Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-03 Thread Peter_Constable
On 07/02/2000 09:16:36 AM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The problem with the phrase "plain text ceases to be plain if you decide that >layout information needs to be encoded" is the word "layout." In the broadest >sense, line and paragraph separation could be considered "layout," and nobody >wo

Re: Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-03 Thread Lars Marius Garshol
* Doug Ewell | | The problem with the phrase "plain text ceases to be plain if you | decide that layout information needs to be encoded" is the word | "layout." In the broadest sense, line and paragraph separation | could be considered "layout," and nobody would suggest doing away | with the pl

Re: Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-02 Thread John Hudson
At 09:16 AM 7/2/00 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote: >The problem with the phrase "plain text ceases to be plain if you decide >that layout information needs to be encoded" is the word "layout." In >the broadest sense, line and paragraph separation could be considered >"layout," and nobody would suggest

Re: Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-02 Thread Doug Ewell
11-Digit Boy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Note that this is a text tagging issue, not a Unicode issue, unless >> you feel that there is some need to indicate Ruby/Furigana in plain >> text. At some point, plain text ceases to be plain if you decide

Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

2000-07-01 Thread 11digitboy
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - email (917) 421-3909 x1133 - voicemail/fax John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 04:04 AM 7/1/00 -0800, you wrote: > >Furigana codes would simply mark certain text as furigana, meaning > to > >the text-display device, "These characters are not to be displaye