I'm not suing anyone, Marco. I'm trying to make sense of what has
become a rather acrimonious debate, which I didn't start, and to try
to determine whether Peter Daniel's accusations about the Unicode
editors "distorting" his definitions is correct.

At 14:04 +0200 2004-07-12, Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>How about letting the rest of us know the URL(s) of the pdf file(s)
>and the page number(s) where the relevant definitions are? Possibly,
>also the page numbers of the corresponding definitions on the WWS,
>for those of us who own a copy?

The definitions Peter has criticized come from
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/b1.pdf the Glossary to
Unicode 4.0, though we do not know what it is about these definitions
that he criticizes. In order to ensure that he *has* read them, I
suggested that he type them in to a mail to this discussion forum,
and also type in the definitions which come from "the glossary in the
front, and in the first pages of the first chapter" of his book, and
then to show us what the alleged distortions were so that errors
could be corrected if necessary.

Peter has so far refused to do this, out of stubbornness, I suppose,
rather than out of an inability to type the four sentences into an
e-mail message.

Still: he is the one who has claimed that Unicode distorted his
definitions, and he should be the one to prove it.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com