Once again, what Keld said could be taken 2 ways: a letter should be a
grapheme, or a letter should be a codepoint. With the first reading, he is
absolutely right. With the second, I agree with you, Michael.
As to the reason: "Characters encode meaning, and letters are one of the ways
to express meaning.", I don't get it. Does that mean that everything that
expresses meaning should be encoded as a character? Beethoven's 3rd is
Michael Everson wrote:
> Ar 12:11 -0700 1999-10-25, scríobh Keld Jørn Simonsen:
> >> > A letter is an element of an alphabet, which itself is a structured
> >> > collection of graphic symbols used to represent one or more languages,
> >> > having specific elements representing for vowels and consonants.
> >A letter should also be a character, IMHO.
> >Characters encodemeaning, and letters are one of the ways
> >to express meaning.
> You really want the !Xóõ letter dt'kx' to be representable SIX different
> ways in the UCS? This means you would have:
> <D><T><'><K><X><'> (these three are already encodable in the UCS)
> Do you really want this? Do you really equate letter to character? I think
> that, if you do, you are making a mistake.
> Michael Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta * http://www.indigo.ie/egt
> 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
> Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT