I don't think we'd have to go too far in documenting the various inconsistent ways they're already used, so I don't see as much trouble along those lines. However, we would want to see who would implement a new, rationalized way of handling them. Lisa On Oct 4, 2007, at 7:02 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > Jeremy Carroll scripsit: > >> Any thoughts? >> Which way should we rationalize behaviour? >> Should we be working on an I-D for file: ? > > The trouble is that a file: ID would have to document and explain > the various inconsistent ways in which file: is already being used. > To paraphrase Tennesee Ernie Ford: > > When you see file: coming, better step aside, > A lotta men didn't, and a lotta men died. > One way for Explorer, another for Mozill', > If the right hand don't a-getcha then the left one will. > > -- > The Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan > idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/ > ~cowan > use characters, nor does it encode logos > or graphics. cowan@ccil.org > >Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 21:44:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:50 UTC