At 10:38 +0100 2002-06-21, William Overington wrote: >I feel that any attempt to delete the word published from the standard would >need to be investigated for possible antitrust law violation.
Bollocks. >As the standards need to get past ISO and that has, I think, on it delegations >exercising powers delegated by national governments, then European Union >Antitrust Law may well protect at least those of us within the European >Union against such goalpost moving. I am unsure about whether since the >Maastricht Treaty whether the laws have been recodified, yet in terms of the >Treaty of Rome, the relevant Articles are Article 85, Article 86 and Article >90. This is the height of nonsense, William, and it is not an appropriate theme for discussion on this list. I am sorry you feel personally attacked because we didn't like your idea of using the PUA for character-encoding something that was already solved in a BETTER way using a higher-level protocol appropriate for glyph representation, but digging through the standard looking for inflammatory guff like this suggests to me that you are seething in a bowl of sour grapes. Get over it. You obviously have a lot of energy and enthusiasm, William. Some of your ideas are misplaced, and looking for legalisms in the text of the standard to support them is not going to help. The PUA is useful for some things, but doing the kinds of glyph-twigging you wanted to do with it is not amongst them. Therefore we told you that what you were trying to do was not appropriate. John Cowan and I *publish* PUA assignments in the ConScript registry. These are simple encodings and do have none of the glyph-hack silliness you have been proposing. You can't just *publish* anything and you like and have it be accepted because you *published* it. Nobody is changing any goalposts. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
