Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why, for the same reason you're correcting them here: because it bothers
>>you to see inaccurate information disseminated. It bothers you enough
>>to correct it here, why not correct it where it can make a difference
>>and reach more people? And if it doesn't bother you, why are you
>>correcting it here?
>>
>>
>
>(a) We've been told that nothing will be changed no matter what anyone
>says;
>
>

Didn't Michael *just now* ask (very politely) for your help in reviewing
and *fixing* problems?

>(b) I am not "correcting" it here; I am pointing out that my intentions
>were, at the least, distorted.
>
>

Say it where it can do some good.

>(c) We know that at least one user was confused by the distortion.
>
>

Say it where more people can become un-confused: help fix the book. Or
else quit complaining. If it's not important enough for *you* to help
make it right, why should anyone else care?

~mark