RE: Definitions

From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 20:03:00 EST

Next message: Tim Greenwood: "Re: That alphabetician on radio...."

Previous message: jameskass@att.net: "RE: Definitions"
Maybe in reply to: Chris Jacobs: "Definitions"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Definitions"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Definitions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On Behalf
> Of jameskass@att.net

> We agree that it is acceptable for any conformant application to
> use all of the PUA internally...

> > Of course, such apps are not the kind of thing most of us find
useful.
>
> Indeed. So, if an application claims to only interpret U+26A0, we
> might take this as kind of a "warning sign" that the application is
> fairly useless, eh?

So, we need to decide: are we going to debate what follows the letter of
the conformance laws, or what is useful?

Peter

Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division

Next message: Tim Greenwood: "Re: That alphabetician on radio...."
Previous message: jameskass@att.net: "RE: Definitions"
Maybe in reply to: Chris Jacobs: "Definitions"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Definitions"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Definitions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 21:03:09 EST