> I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Your definition
> of Language does allow free text.
Ah, right. Sorry! I didn't realise that. Ahem. (*Pete makes note to read
own documents before commenting*)
> I was questioning whether
> that should be allowed. I would think it best to require a
> scheme to be used.
Right, yes. I agree. ;-)
> Additional human-readable information
> sounds like it should go somehere else (description?). But
> maybe there are obscure and/or ancient langauges not covered
> by the schemes?
Pete
|