Re: Unicode 3.0 press statements

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sat Jan 22 2000 - 09:43:03 EST

Ar 19:19 -0800 2000-01-21, scríobh Mark E. Davis:
>Omicron was required because it was distinguished from O in at least one
>of the
>source standards for Unicode. Thus there was never any discussion of
>whether it
>would otherwise have been unified or not.

Nor would there have been if it had not been present in one of the source
standards, Mark.

>I was never part of the Cyrillic discussions, so if someone would summarized
>the reasons that Q and W cannot be correctly processed if used as Kurdish,
>I would appreciate it. The only reason off hand that I can think of that
>someone might claim that a mixture of Kurdish and (say) English could not
>be correctly sorted.

We have said this many times before. Kurdish is written in Cyrillic in some
places. Kurdish is written in Latin in other places. Same language. You
can't sort a multiscript list of Kurdish words if you are making Q and W
serve as letters of two different scripts. Never mind English and Kurdish.
The example is Kurdish and Kurdish.

Further, as John Cowan has pointed out, the CYRILLIC KU at least also has
glyph shapes which are seriously non-Latin.

<FRUSTRATION>You know, there is only a handful of these holy-of-holy early
unifications that we rail against, and we rail against them for good
reasons. We were right about EZH and YOGH, and we are right about Coptic,
and we are right about Q and W. And there are a few more. Mark's earlier
comment about scriptism is interesting, as indicative, in my view part of
the problem.</FRUSTRATION>


Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta **
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT