Re: I'm lost: what the heck are Daniels and Everson sueing each oth

At 11:04 -0400 2004-07-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Well, apparently the definitions deviate from things you said in
>> public, and may or may not have published in some of those years
> > mentioned.
>
>"May or may not"? Do you not have copies of the JAOS 1990 article, the
>1992 Milwaukee symposium volume, and the 1996 WWS?

I have the last. I don't know anything about a "Milwaukee symposium"
or a "JAOS" article.

> > I can't imagine why anyone would complain about a minor bit of
> > formatting to make some text more legible in e-mail, nor that it
> > would be necessary to do so anyway but silently.
>
>Because it shows that you're still willing to change things without
>acknowledging that you['re] changing them.

That's just nonsense. You're out to score points, Peter, and I'm not
interesting in that little game.

> > No, Peter. In the first place they are not MY definitions; they are
>> those of the Unicode Standard. I didn't write them. In the second
>> place, YOU are the one who has said that there is something wrong
>> with them, and it is up to YOU to inform us what, if you want us to
>> do anything about it. I am not going to try to parse the difference
>> and determine what it is that YOU think is wrong with the Unicode
>> definitions.
>
>Are you or are you not on this mysterious "Unicode committee" that
>published the book? So long as individual passages are unsigned, you are
>all responsible for every word that goes out under your names.

I d-i-d n-o-t w-r-i-t-e t-h-e d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n-s i-n t-h-e
U-n-i-c-o-d-e G-l-o-s-s-a-r-y.

I have been trying to invite constructive discussion and correction,
if correction is warranted. Frankly I find your adversarial attitude
rather rude, not to say self-defeating.

>Somehow John managed to copy two of the three definitions into an
>email message.

Somehow, indeed.

>If you can't see the differences, why not?

I can read, Peter. What I cannot do is read minds, particularly, it
seems, yours. I have tried, and will try again here, to invite you to
specify what s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c distortions you OBJECT to, and what
s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c corrective action you would like to have taken to
correct what it is that YOU object to.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com