- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:17:54 -0700
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 17, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote: > > > Did you accidentally omit the <sneer> tags, Brad ? > Philip TAYLOR > I'm just a proponent of increasing literacy, not decreasing it. I think it is absurd to suggest that we reduce all written communication to what the illiterate can understand, and I don't think trying to talk with pictures does that anyway. They are still visual a written language of sorts, but just one that is not standardized, much more ambiguous, and less rich in meaning. I think that if you like to write in pictograms, you would have much more communicative effect if you used simplified Chinese, which derives its symbols from word pictures. Or if you wanted to use something even more pictographic, you could advocate for the use of Egyptian hieroglyphics. At least that is something that is more well developed in vocabulary. There are good reasons why written communication developed from pictures into more formalized systems.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 15:18:36 UTC