On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:46:08AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> I already gave an example of capital form of 'c' with cedille is
> often plain 'C' without cedille and seldom 'C' with cedille, even
> though tools of ISO 8859/1 and Unicode support 'C' with cedille.
Changing the example does not make your case any stronger. (And
actually, you're now well into the land already staked by
J.F.C. Morfin and his crowd of adherents. In my opinion, Jefsey's
understanding of how French works is not exactly in line with what
l'Académie says, but you're welcome to go and read his views for
yourself.)
> That is, people affect the tools.
If course they do. And the tools affect the people. Technology
shapes us even as we shape it. English speakers have learned that,
for comparison purposes, EXAMPLE and example match, but it's not
actually quite as simple as that. For instance, there is a sorting
rule in English that sorts capital letters before lower case; so if
you had a list with EXAMPLE, Example, and example in it, they would
sort in that order. And sometimes case is important, as when you are
correcting the spelling of something that ought to be capitalized in
some cases and not others. ("The University's Senate made a statement
that the role of the university in the modern context has changed."
Case can change meaning.) Not all of this can be captured in the DNS,
either, but competent speakers of the language have learned how to
move around in this context.
> Now, may I ask where are facts supporting *YOUR* assumptions?
I'm not sure which assumptions you're talking about. If you're
talking about the one in which I was arguing that technology shapes us
just as surely as we shape it, then I'm afraid the demonstration of
that is altogether off topic for this list. But if you don't believe
me, I can suggest some elementary reading for you. You may find her
totally inaccessible, but I find Donna Haraway on cyborgs to be an
excellent place to start.
Anyway, you have not demonstrated even a little bit that all of this
needs to be included in the document, since it does not pertain
directly. You don't even appear to be trying to make such an
argument, so I think you're just ranting because you don't like IDNA.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[email protected]
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
