I know I said this before, but this time I'm serious. I will no longer respond publicly to any post concerning William Overington's proposed extensions of the kind of things that should be encoded in Unicode. That is because I am convinced now that his misinterpretation of the basic principles of Unicode, and the types of entities that do and do not make sense for encoding, is willful and not due to ignorance.
Nobody with the intelligence of a tree could possibly read the character-glyph document and come away with the impression that font styles, sizes, colors, etc. are "central" to the notion of what belongs in character encoding. Intelligence is clearly not the problem here. But, because I am not an ad hominem kind of guy, I will be happy to discuss other topics related to (and appropriate to) Unicode that are raised by William or anyone else. In my next message, I want to address the "large corporate sponsor" angle that William, and others in the past, have used to argue that Unicode is unresponsive to the needs of low-end users. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
