>Regarding de-unification, my personal preference is to be able to distinguish
>as many languages as possible in plain text; if I were to create such a list,
>it would be very long and it would certainly include Coptic among others. But
>we are not discussing personal preferences here. We are discussing a global
>standard which, though not perfect in every aspect, represents a historic
>forward for all.
Yes, but the global standard is made up of individual human beings like you
>In order to make Unicode succeed, we have to allow reasonable compromises in
>many areas so that we can include additional scripts as needed.
There is space for Coptic. :-) There is space for lots and lots of things.
Just look at the roadmap.
>I hope you do not take our discussion in a bad way. Your arguments have merit,
>and I understand them perfectly well.
I am glad you see it so. I understand yours too.
>We are disagreeing on what is a reasonable compromise in the case of Coptic.
No compromise! :-)
>For the benefit of everybody else on this
>list, let us agree to disagree and take further discussion off-line.
OK. Kamal, there's a little roadmap group talking off in the sidelines, and
I am about to start some discussion on this and related matters on the ISO
15924 (script codes) discussion list. I agree, let's get consensus off-line.
-- Michael Everson, EGT * http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire (Ireland) Gutháin: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT