Michael Everson wrote:

>
> 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.

Are you familiar with the concept of "bibliography"? WWS has several.
They are listed in the first one.

> > > 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.

Then don't perpetuate distortions of other people's work.

> > > 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.

Does it say anywhere who did? If not, the entire committee, individually
and severally, is responsible for them.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...