Doug Ewell wrote as follows. >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.
Actually, I did not write that. What I wrote was as follows. quote of what I previously wrote Courtyard codes and codes for chromatic fonts, in my opinion, fall within the definition of character in Annex B of that document. This is not me finding some definition tucked away obscurely, it is central. The introduction section of the document states as follows. quote This Technical Report is written for a reader who is familiar with the work of SC 2 and SC 18. Readers without this background should first read Annex B, "Characters" and Annex C, "Glyphs". end quote end quote of what I previously wrote I have been referred to the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document about characters and glyphs and yet no one seems willing to discuss the definition of character that is clearly stated in that document, people just keep saying that markup exists, as if the very existence of XML in some way precludes single code point colour codes and single code point formatting codes and so on. The quote of what I previously wrote is saying that I have not found that definition tucked away obscurely, that definition is central to the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document. That is, I am not trying to push my ideas for colour codes through some obscure legal and technical loophole, I am saying that they are entirely consistent with the definition of character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document, where that definition is central to the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document. As you have already made your decision about my research and indeed about me, then I am not going to try to convince you otherwise and this posting is not intended to do so. I am merely answering a specific accusation as to my ideas and my personality. Unfortunately various responses to my research have been on other than the scientific aspects of my research and unfortunately in human society that type of response outweighs intellectual discussions on the facts, such as the specific fact of the definition of character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document which no one responding to my posts seems willing to discuss. I feel that if the definition of character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document is considered, with the meanings of the words in that definition considered, then scientific progress can be made. If people are simply going to question my motives and my personality and not discuss the definition of character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document, then that is just an example of the way that human society unfortunately works, in that scientific ideas can be dismissed without explanation by bringing in a questioning of the personality of the person suggesting them. William Overington 9 July 2002
