From: Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 11:19:15 CDT
Charles Lindsey said:
>> I'm not sure that has a good meaning or the meaning we want (remember that
>> in some languages several characters combine to form a single glyph). Why
>> not just define the count in terms of the appropriate entity in the syntax,
>> which is "component-item" ?
> Yes, but what I had in mind was to replace the term "component-item" by
> "component-glyph" or "component-grapheme" or "component-other-foobar" that
> would be more helpful in leading the reader's perceptions in the right
> direction. But would that help or hinder, and what is the write "word" to
> use?
I *think* it's "component-character".
-- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646