From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 03 2001 - 04:50:06 CDT
In <20010702171915.O76346@demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:
>Charles Lindsey said:
>> 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".
No, because "character" is the one concept that IS well defined (it is one
Unicode code-point), and there can be several "characters" in one
"component-[item,character,glyph,grapheme,foobar]".
In fact, there would be a lot to be said for "foobar", since it would be
instantly recognisable wherever it was seen :-) . The problem with "item"
is that it is TOO neutral.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5