On 09/26/2002 06:05:45 AM "William Overington" wrote:
I'm going to refrain from commenting on anything beyond the markup issues -- and I'm continuing with that only because it's an easy follow-on to what I already wrote, even though there is every indication that the sensibility of it will be ignored. >A document would contain a sequence such as follows. > >U+2604 U+0302 U+20E3 12001 U+2460 London U+2604 U+0302 U+20E2 You could just as easily have used <S C="12001">London</S> or <S C="12001" P1="London"/> which are only slightly more verbose, but which follow a widely-implemented standard that can be parsed by lots of existing software, for which there are a large number of tools available, and which a vast number of indivuals, businesses and other agencies have an interest in. Your markup convention is completely proprietary, it has no existing software support, and nobody but you has any interest in it. You tell me which one is more likely to result in productive work and adoption by others. >that it is >because I am an inventor, interested in pushing the envelope as to what is >possible scientifically and technologically. Perhaps there is an [EMAIL PROTECTED] list somewhere where you might find greater interest in your ideas than here. None of us here mind invention, but I think most would believe that inventiveness is most productive when building off the advancement of others rather than reinventing wheels or widgets. XML exists, and it works. Beside the fact that your proposed markup convention is not a good idea, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of Unicode. This discussion really ought to be taken elsewhere. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
