Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 13:14 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > >So someone took the two terms from me but made up their own definitions.
> > > >What am I supposed to do about that?
> >>
> >> Copy the two terms in question to this list. Then propose amendments
> >> to correct the definitions. Let's see if that produces something
> >> actionable.
> >
> >"Actionable"? You think I should sue?
>
> Please don't be obtuse. "Actionable" means that if there is text in
> the Unicode book which can be improved, and if you do as I have
> suggested and propose amendments to the existing definitions in order
> to correct whatever it is that you think is wrong with them, then
> such text could be considered by the editorial committee.
>
> >My definitions of the terms are in the glossary at the front of WWS,
> >which is probably where the words were taken from; when did Unicode
> >begin?
>
> Irrelevant. If you are unhappy with the definitions, and can do as I
> have suggested, perhaps the definitions can be improved. If you
> cannot, well, then, please stop complaining about the definitions in
> the Unicode Standard.

"Unicode Standard," whoever that is, screwed with the definitions they
found in my book (or, possibly, prior articles). Why should I try to get
them to unscrew with what was plainly before their eyes?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...