Re: Definitions

At 09:43 -0400 2004-08-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Michael Everson wrote:
>>
>> At 09:29 -0400 2004-08-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> >I posted the definitions I published many years ago. What's wrong
>>with them?
> >
>> They are minimalist. While they may appropriate to your article in
>> the WWS, it was felt that they need elaboration to be useful in the
>> context of the Glossary in the Unicode Standard.
>
>So what would you, or anyone, suggest?

I was just answering your question. Obviously the people who wrote
the definitions for the glossary felt that elaboration was necessary.

>Definitions are _supposed_ to be minimalist

Says who? They are supposed to explain the needful. That does not
mean they must be minimalist.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com