<html>
<body>
Dear all,<br>
Will I answer Mark? No. <br><br>
My prority is now with the Interplus Draft as a working document. So I
would lack the time. But mainly this is because I could not.<br>
What Mark talks about is not nonsense.However, (1) everyone knows it (2)
it is by nature a different topic.<br>
I am a multilinguist (simultaneous technical support of a language
diversity), not a linguist (discussing individual language
cases).<br><br>
Mark's interest is in <b>globalization</b>, i.e. the system he invented
to support foreign languages in English technologies. As such it is a
great success. It has the technical cons and pros of being an English
language machine-centric system.<br><br>
My interest is in <b>presentation</b> and <b>extended services</b>
network layers. This what we need in order to empower:<br>
- without constraints every language (including English, French, Arabic,
Chinese etc.) <br>
- as part of semiotic (including scripts) mediatic end to end functions
(access, addressing, delivery, routing, etc.) , <br>
- in every technology (including the Internet), <br>
- in using every coding (<b>including Unicode</b>),<br>
- for every application (including IDNA), <br>
- in every environment from brain cells to outerspace identified by their
namespaces.<br>
This is a people centric system, to accomodate the relations of the
people diversity in what they are and what they do. Is it a reason why to
disregard Unicode? No! As fas as the Internet is concerned, Unicode
is a structured set of code-points. If IDNA users are happy with it, the
Internet should be happy with it. If they are not, they should be not.
<br><br>
Does that mean that Unicode should be disregarded ? No!<br><br>
The same as Unicode is not a reason for disregarding the DNS (this is the
justification of IDNA). Each addresses the needs of a different layer.
Layers need to cooperate. In order for all them to progress in
symbiosis.<br><br>
NB. what Marks discusses is not obsolete, it is just (as he documents it
himself very well) a layer below what I discuss. <br>
Best.<br>
jfc<br>
<br>
<br><br>
At 01:47 03/07/2009, Mark Davis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">What Jefsey suggests is all
nonsense.<br><br>
Here is what is happening. Basically, one can make a distinction between
capital letters that are required linguistically (the <i>L</i> at the
start of the sentence below and the <i>M</i> at the start of the proper
name <i>Marcel</i> in the example below) and those that just happen to
have a capital form (because the sentence is set in all caps). The former
in French are called <i>majuscules</i>, and the latter <i>capitales</i>.