On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sorry, but I don't understand why this argument tends to > concentrate on claims that were never made in the first place. The > OP's intent was very clear even to a non-native English speaker such > as myself.
It was sort of vague to me. In any case, you start a negative comment talking about how Unicode is commercial, what do you expect, people not to respond to that? >> > However, it is probably the main objective. Who works for nothing except >> > odd crazies like me? >> >> You'd be surprised how many people have volunteered their time and >> expertise to help improve Unicode. > > Naena Guru didn't say anything to the contrary. "Crazies" can be > counted in thousands. Again, the intent is quite clear and does not > warrant such nitpicking. Yes, it does. It was implying that Unicode was a commercial thing and that people weren't working for it for free. >> > When years back I asked why ligatures formed inside Notepad and not inside >> > Word, I had the clear reply that it is owing to a business decision. >> >> That doesn't mean Unicode is broken. > > Naena Guru didn't say it was. The intent is quite clear: proprietary > applications do or don't do something due to "business decisions" that > don't necessarily have anything to do with the needs of the audience. Proprietary? I can name a number of free software programs that did the same thing. In any case, your interpretation of the intent makes into a non-sequitor. One of the rules of interpreting human language is that statements generally need to interpreted in the context of their stating, in ways that makes them not non-sequitors. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
