Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> John Cowan wrote:
> > In summary, this means that Unicode 3.0 should include:
> > [A] total of 38 scripts;
> Not quite. In addition to the 24 scripts currently in Unicode 2.1:
Okay, I miscounted Unicode 2.1; I thought there were 25.
> [A] total of 36 scripts.
> All other additions are either extensions to existing scripts
> or represent symbols or symbol collections. (Braille is not
> generally considered a script.)
This last seems highly debatable. Why is Braille not a script?
I realize that the 256 dot-patterns mean different things in different
contexts, but isn't that equally true of other scripts?
-- John Cowan email@example.com e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT