At 12:07 +0100 2002-05-27, William Overington wrote:
>Response to the comments of Mr Michael Everson.
>> Of course it does.
>No "of course" about it. Say why if you choose. Unicode does not provide
>the basis for markup.
Markup like XML and HTML use letters which are encoded in Unicode.
When you type them into a document, a browser or other display engine
uses the markup to format and display
>The Unicode specification shows how characters are to be displayed.
No it doesn't. The glyphs are informative.
>Markup does not display a < character properly in accordance
>with the Unicode specification and, having received a < character, does not
>display following characters properly in accordance with the Unicode
>specification until a > character, which it also does not display in
>accordance with the Unicode specification, is received.
I think you need to learn some more about markup. Maybe www.w3c.org
has some tutorials which could help you.
>Unicode might well be used for producing markup by some end users, but that
>is not the same as the claim made originally that Unicode provides the basis
>for markup, which claim was made as if justification for claiming my ideas
>as not being good.
Well I cannot fathom what you mean by "provide the basis", which
seems to be the crux of this misunderstanding. Nevertheless, one can,
and does write marked-up text with Unicode, with Mac Roman, with CP
1252, and other character sets.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon May 27 2002 - 06:48:42 EDT