• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:08:57 -0400 (EDT)

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> No, I think that 90%+ of people are never going to need to use
> Blueberry at all. I think that of the remainder, most of those who
> are using Blueberry will know they are because all their markup will
> be written in Khmer or Amharic or Mongolian and so forth. I think it
> will be a very rare case, mostly limited to some Japanese and Chinese
> documents (and far from the majority of those), where there may or may
> not be Blueberry characters.

Well, which is it?  In World 1, only the people who want to use
Blueberry-specific name characters use Blueberry.  In World 2, everybody
jumps on the Blueberry bandwagon even when they only use ASCII, and
interoperability is damaged.  You seem to switch between these two
worlds unpredictably.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@c...
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: building an object model of a XML schema
• Next by Date: Re: Primary and Foreign Keys
• Previous by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread