Yes, sorry. I should not have answered to your post, because I did not refer
to it specifically.
My comments were general thoughts on opinions heard in that thread in the
previous few days (and, admittedly, the good part of these thought was no
news, as similar opinion had already been expressed by others).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 1999 October 04, Monday 08.42
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Unicode politics (was: A basic question on encoding Lati
> >Once again, I will annoy you with my postings about things
> that I don't know well enough to talk about...
> Your posting was by no means annoying, at least to me. Except
> for a couple of very minor points not worth mentioning, I fully
> agree with your comments. I hope you understand that my
> comments, to which you were responding, were intended only
> - to attempt to give some kind of answer to Edward C's question
> about how many of the world's languages already have writing
> systems, and
> - to clarify that SIL does not have as an agenda to develop
> writing systems for every one of the world's languages (we are
> willing to assist any language community with such a desire,
> within the limits of currently available resources, but we
> can't decide that a language community *will* become literary).
> (For more info on SIL's interests and goals, see http:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT