Mark Shoulson wrote: > > We can't write meta-rules for everything, Curtis. And it isn't a good > > use of my time, anyway, to try. "Informed whim" if you will. > > Whim sounds about right. And this isn't a criticism. I honestly doubt > I could satisfactorily defend the choice of unifying French "A" and > English "A" but not Russian "A" against a determined Devil's Advocate.
ISO 8859-5, Windows Code Page 1251, Code Page 855. Game, set, match. > We wind up like Justice Potter Stewart and pornography: maybe we can't > define it, but we know it when we see it. And there will be edge cases, > yes, where not all of us agree on seeing it. Whim is all we have to go > on; run with it. Hardly. What we have is not whim, but a large collection of good principles, which sometimes are at odds with each other, and which are often difficult to apply systematically in particular edge cases. Sorting that out is not a matter of whim, in my opinion. --Ken
