At 16:11 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>"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?

Because you are the one extolling your unassailable wisdom to us and
suggesting that the work of the Unicode editorial committee is
inadequate?

Because you are the one that assumes that it was the precise
definitions in your book which were the basis

Because you have yet to show us, by quoting the Unicode definitions
alongside your own to show us exactly how YOUR definitions have been
distorted. And no, sir, I'm not going to do that work for you. You're
the one doing the complaining that YOUR definitions aren't being
respected.

You seem to be going out of your way to be impolite and curmudgeonly
to pretty much everyone on this list. It's offensive. I have been
trying to invite you to a more interesting sort of discourse, and now
you're being snippy with me. I wish you wouldn't be.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com