At 07:35 16-05-2000 +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>Are there some guide lines which kind of documents should be cited?
Existing printed literature will do: Show it has been used as a distinct
typographical unit (i.e., not just as a mere illustration), a.k.a.
"character" vs. glyph, in books, or newspapers, or magazines, in a
consistent manner. If you can do that, no one (myself included) will object.
It does not matter it does not have an existing ASCII representation: Most
of Unicode does not.
If such prior use does not exist, your proposal will be turned regardless
of what I, or anyone on this list, says. My own objection was based on this
criterium only. When I talked about "agenda" I did not mean to stir a war
about whether Stallman is right (I thought I made that clear by saying "or
anyone else's"), rather to point out that it seemed to me (and still does,
sorry) the reasons for the proposal were other than existing use in the
printed world.
Others have had strong objections against other inclusions here before. It
never had anything to do with ideological disagreements, just as my
objection did not.
Heck, I have made suggestions which were strongly objected to (i.e., to
include the "ch" which is used as a letter in my language), and I certainly
did not take those objections as an attack on my nationality, or anything
like that.
Quite honestly, I have never seen a reversed copyright sign in printed
literature (or anywhere else), hence my objection. Meanwhile, you can use
the PUA (the private usage area) to represent this symbol. That will not
give you a universal recognition, of course, but if there is no universal
use, you do not need it (again, sorry, nothing personal).
I think I have said enough on the subject, too. I would prefer not to
discuss this any further unless there is a compelling reason. But since you
are the originator of this proposal, I thought I owed you this explanation.
Cheers,
Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT