> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:17:44 -0700
> From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse_at_ilyaz.org>
> Cc: asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com, verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr, ken_at_unicode.org,
> unicode_at_unicode.org, jjc_at_jclark.com
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:08:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Sorry, I do not see any definition here. Just a collection of words
> > > which looks like a definition, but only locally…
> >
> > Any definition is just a collection of words, of course. Can you tell
> > what is missing from this collection to make it eligible?
>
> This is a very delicate question, of course. And it is very personal:
> every definition assumes a certain target population. But let me try:
>
> A) It should be immediately clear which of the possible meanings of
> every word/phrase was intended by the author;
>
> B) It should have a unique non-self-contradictory interpretation;
>
> C) The reader should immediately get a feeling that given enough
> effort, one will be able to understand what is the interpretation
> in (B).
I agree with all of the above (except that "immediately" might not be
practically achievable in complex cases). I tried to achieve all of
these goals with my attempted definitions, and I believe I succeeded,
as did Asmus.
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Wed Apr 23 2014 - 09:55:18 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 23 2014 - 09:55:19 CDT