John Hudson writes: > I disagree. What you describe may be desirable, but in no way is it > necessary. What is important to document in a proposal is what is necessary > to *encode* text, not to display it.
0,1. That's all that's needed to encode any script. So why do we have to include an image, anyway? A lot of the arguments on this list amount to, I have this symbol in my text, how do I encode it? In any complex script (or simple script being used in a complex way), this may not be obvious from the list of encoded entites. If it's not, then there must be some rational way to tell how it should be encoded, because having multiple (normalized) encodings for the same text makes text handling hard. For example, (bad example warning), if we encoded the English alphabet as vertical line, upper, middle and lower horizontal lines, half loop and loop, then the proposal should show us how to represent all the major entities in English text with this. If people come back saying "this says Q should be loop + lower horizontal line and we think it should be loop + vertical line", then there was a problem with the proposal. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
