>
> Murray Sargent wrote on 1997-07-15 20:27 UTC:
> > I dare say that most people on the UTC agree with you and don't want to
> > put any tagging scheme into Unicode or 10646. But there are lots of
> > people out there who don't want to depend on a higher-level protocol
> > such as HTML to specify language. After the hundreds of email messages
> > to this effect that we've seen on the Unicode aliases (did you delete
> > them en masse?), it's hard not to provide some mechanism, regardless of
> > whether it should be done from a technical point of view. Ken's
> > approach is probably the least offensive scheme to come up in the myriad
> > email. Sigh!
>
And Markus Kuhn replied:
> The real problem that the people who want language tagging so urgently fail
> to understand is that they actually want a vendor independent standard
> WYSIWYG file format for word processing.
Nope, that is not the real problem. The people who want language
tagging urgently are Internet protocol designers, for the most part,
and their need has absolutely nothing to do with word processing file
formats.
The people involved with word processing file formats have perfectly
adequate metadata, hyperstructural, or markup mechanisms for dealing
with language tagging, and have not been the proponents of any additional
tagging scheme in Unicode at all.
> Unitext would obviously be based on Unicode, but it would add page layout,
> font selection, language tagging, image inclusion, table and math formula
> formatting, and a few other goodies.
>
> Would the Unicode Consortium be interested in a Unitext project?
Not me, at least. Gotta draw the line somewhere!
>
> Leave Unicode alone with your tagging ideas. Start Unitext, the
> all you can dream of tagging collection.
Sounds like a bad recipe to me.
--Ken
>
> Markus
>
> --
> Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
> University, Indiana, USA -- email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT