Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:

> We *do* have something we can call characters: characters.  You might
> find them useless, but their semantics are quite clear.

If they are so clear, please explain them.

> No.  I'm proposing that *characters* be the
> already-well-understood-concept of "character", which is not glyph,
> and is not code point.

What is it, then?  I'm not trying to be dense here; I really don't
understand what you have in mind.

--
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    xxxxxx@ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev