At 12:07 +0100 2002-05-27, William Overington wrote: >Response to the comments of Mr Michael Everson. > >> Of course it does. > >No "of course" about it. Say why if you choose. Unicode does not provide >the basis for markup.
Markup like XML and HTML use letters which are encoded in Unicode. When you type them into a document, a browser or other display engine uses the markup to format and display >The Unicode specification shows how characters are to be displayed. No it doesn't. The glyphs are informative. >Markup does not display a < character properly in accordance >with the Unicode specification and, having received a < character, does not >display following characters properly in accordance with the Unicode >specification until a > character, which it also does not display in >accordance with the Unicode specification, is received. I think you need to learn some more about markup. Maybe www.w3c.org has some tutorials which could help you. >Unicode might well be used for producing markup by some end users, but that >is not the same as the claim made originally that Unicode provides the basis >for markup, which claim was made as if justification for claiming my ideas >as not being good. Well I cannot fathom what you mean by "provide the basis", which seems to be the crux of this misunderstanding. Nevertheless, one can, and does write marked-up text with Unicode, with Mac Roman, with CP 1252, and other character sets. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
