At 1999-10-22 11:45, Michael Everson wrote:
> -- and if they are not
>just bizarre glyph variants of the Tibetan Script (as Enochian and Theban
>might be considered to be with regard to English).
Stop that, will you?
Theban, like the Alphabet of the Magi, Secret Etruscan, Noachite, Vehmic,
the Inquisatorial alphabet, the Templar alphabet, the various versions of
the Rose Cross cipher, and Pig-Pen, is a cipher for Latin. Should such
things be encoded in Unicode or the ConScript Registry? Arguably they
are, as you say, merely glyph variants and are best handled at the font
Enochian, on the other hand, is a script for a language. I've never seen
any English transliterated into Enochian. One might as well consider that
Sir John Dee constructed the language and associated script in
Elizabethan times, although he claimed that it was in fact the language
-- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT