Re: Coptic II?

From: John Clews (
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 06:44:22 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Coptic II?"

    Going back to a November 2002 posting, in message
    John Cowan writes:

    > Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin scripsit:
    > > The roadmap v3.5 < >, as
    > > of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for
    > > "Coptic". Failing to access the linked proposal right now, what is the
    > > difference between this script and the coptic chars included in the
    > > Greek block (U+0370 - U+03FF)?
    > The new proposal supplies Coptic versions of the letters currently
    > unified with Greek, leaving the existing Coptic-specific letters alone.
    > It reflects the consensus in UTC that unifying Greek and Coptic was a
    > mistake.

    I'm not questioning that there are good reasons to have separate code
    points for Greek and Coptic alphabets.

    However, just out of interest, is there a brief rationale from those
    involved in UTC as to why that separation of Greek and Coptic is a
    "good thing", while any proposal to add a Cyrillic Q and W, and to
    have a separate sequence for Georgian Nuskhuri letters (as well as
    for the existing Georgian Mkhedruli letters and Georgian Asomtavruli
    letters) would be a "bad thing"?

    I look forward to enlightenment.

    Best regards

    John Clews

    John Clews,
    Director and Editor
    Keytempo directory of musicians
    Keytempo Limited (Information Management),
    8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, United Kingdom.
    01423 888 432 (tel); 07766 711395 (mobile);

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 24 2002 - 07:48:41 EST