On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 06:32 , David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 05:53:04AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
>> As an engineer I fully second your opinion. As a person whose name
>> once compromised by the government, I have to note it may be
>> politically incorrect to do so just because it is technically correct.
>
> So people can't get work done, and poets are silenced because of
> politics. The very concept is something to which I object most strongly.
To me such poets who give up their work just because a
(government|corporate|industrial) standard stands in a way is not an
artist enough. They can express their artistic freedom for all their
might. They are free to invent their own language, their own coding
system or their own OS if they will. Nothing would stop an artist if
s/he is an artist indeed. The rejection of Klingon won't stop Trekkies
putting gifs on their web pages, for one thing.
But that does not necessarily mean that Unicode or any standard must
give in to a particular art of work. If standards listen to every
single artist there would not be any standard at all. Standards don't
have a luxury of freedom that art does. Standards are for needs, Arts
are for wants.
Dan the (Hopefully) Artistic Man
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 16:54:55 EST