From: John Clews (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 06:44:22 EST
Going back to a November 2002 posting, in message
John Cowan writes:
> Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin scripsit:
> > The roadmap v3.5 < http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html >, 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
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.
-- 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); Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://www.keytempo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 24 2002 - 07:48:41 EST