From: Otto Stolz (Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2008 - 03:44:30 CDT
Hello,
Michael Everson had written:
> ʞɔɐqpǝǝɟ uʍop ǝpısdn
> • +++++++ɐ ¡uoıʇɔɐsuɐɹʇ ʇɐǝɹƃ¡ʇuǝɯʎɐd ʇsɐɟ
> ǝɥʇ ɹoɟ noʎ ʞuɐɥʇ 'ppɐ oʇ pǝʇuɐʍ osןɐ ı
António MARTINS-Tuválkin wrote:
> Indeed! Even if this is an example on how *not* to use Unicode — it is
> hard to resist the temptation of fooling around with typical glyphs for
> more than 100k characters (especially for those of us raised in the dire
> constrains of seven-bit ASCII-art ;-).
That idea predates Unicode by more than a decade (at least),
cf. <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=947803&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=963067&CFTOKEN=66840399&ret=1
(the article proper is in
<http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=947803&type=pdf&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=963067&CFTOKEN=66840399
Enjoy,
Otto Stolz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 29 2008 - 03:47:59 CDT