Re: There was this thing called Unicode...

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 11:24:37 EDT

Michael (michka) Kaplan <michka at trigeminal dot com> wrote:

> Could we please declare a moratorium on all of this nonsense ---
> er, considered debate ---for a little while, and talk about Unicode,
> instead?

I wouldn't quite go so far in claiming that the (overlapping) PUA and
Phaistos threads are all that far off-topic, as long as they stick to
the principles of what things are appropriate for Unicode and how those
things would be encoded.

Actually I am enjoying the discussion over how to handle certain
poorly-attested features in Phaistos like directionality and glyph
reversing. The same issues would arise if the script *were* going to be
encoded in Unicode, but then they would probably only be discussed on
the Unicore list. This way I get a little window on what the process is

Think about the typical "Unicode-related" mail this list gets:

"How can I force UTF-8 into <database server> when it doesn't want to
"Unicode is inadequate to cover <script> because it doesn't separately
encode <glyph variant>."
"Why can't I view <script> on my browser? Is it because Unicode sucks?"

Are the current threads really worse?

I wish we could see some nice discussions about the scripts and
characters that are supposed to be added to Unicode 4.0, like Limbu, Tai
Le, Ugaritic, hexagrams, etc. But that hasn't happened yet (at least
not here) and 4.0 isn't due out for another year, so we may be stuck
with the topics we have.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 10:11:25 EDT