> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:17:44 -0700 > From: Ilya Zakharevich <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected] > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:08:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Sorry, I do not see any definition here. Just a collection of words > > > which looks like a definition, but only locally… > > > > Any definition is just a collection of words, of course. Can you tell > > what is missing from this collection to make it eligible? > > This is a very delicate question, of course. And it is very personal: > every definition assumes a certain target population. But let me try: > > A) It should be immediately clear which of the possible meanings of > every word/phrase was intended by the author; > > B) It should have a unique non-self-contradictory interpretation; > > C) The reader should immediately get a feeling that given enough > effort, one will be able to understand what is the interpretation > in (B).
I agree with all of the above (except that "immediately" might not be practically achievable in complex cases). I tried to achieve all of these goals with my attempted definitions, and I believe I succeeded, as did Asmus. _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
