Thomas Lord scripsit:
> Well, that's good except for the restriction. The draft, on the
> other hand, still says otherwise, does it not?
I don't control the draft, obviously. I'm trying to point out the
extent to which I can support your proposal by offering a compromise:
R6RS implementations can have implementation-dependent characters
as long as their integer values are outside the range 0-#x10FFFF.
> You are abusing the word "semantic" badly. Unpaired surrogates have
> plenty of meaning in various contexts. They suffer no shortage of
> semantics.
My point is that they have *only* contextual meaning (and none the
worse for that).
> It is really difficult to reply to you with polite restraint because you
> make such outrageous yet ultimately nonsensical claims.
I appreciate your continuing to make the effort, as I continue to
struggle to reciprocate.
> Also rejected by the consortium are distinctions in writing systems that
> are widely recognized for some Asian languages. The details of that
> controversy hardly seem to matter to the case at hand though -- the
> mere existence of the controversy is proof enough of the principle.
I agree that the details of Han unification have no place here, and
confine myself to noting that you misrepresent the situation.
--
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver
spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, "I want to be
rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to
act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley
Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 09:48:07 UTC