> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 09:18:58AM +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > > Can you point any concrete example of confusion?
> >
> > Since you are the one complaning, it's *your* job to look at the
> > proper official reference glyphs.
>
> Er.
>
> From: "Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Unicode, character ambiguities
> Message-ID: <000701c199d0$71ab17d0$efc11081@chalmers95a69n>
>
> > I think that is confusing the matter more than necessary.
>
> You're complaining about confusion, and he asked for an
> example of this
> confusion. That's a perfectly reasonable request.
No it's not. And I was speaking as a matter of principle.
If you are talking about the reference glyphs, then it the
responsibility of whoever is complaining about them to point
to the *actual* reference glyphs, not some other glyphs,
that may or may not be the same as the reference glyphs.
It should not be necessary for the *reader* to try to find
out if the glyph referred to is sufficiently the same as
the reference glyph(s) or not for the argument put forward.
/kent k
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
