Re: Coptic II?

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 15:01:20 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Coptic II?"

    At 12:54 PM 12/24/02 +0000, Michael Everson wrote:
    >At 11:44 +0000 2002-12-24, John Clews wrote:
    >>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, ... would be a "bad thing"?

    One of the problems is that modern computer character sets have been
    Latin+Cyrillic, allowing users easy access to Latin Q and W when processing
    Cyrillic. Essentially, existing character sets before Unicode, in other
    words legacy character sets, have set the precedent for this unification.

    Disunifying this belatedly in Unicode would introduce non-negligible data
    conversion problems. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Latin
    and Cyrillic Q and W do not look noticably different, if at all, which
    means that the even the (inadvertant) future use of Latin Q and W cannot be
    ruled out, perpetuating the incidences of dual encoding.

    Coptic does not have this legacy issue, for one there aren't any parts of
    8859 that can be used for Coptic.

    >Mostly it has to do with inertia and attachment to earlier (false)
    >unifications. Having said that, it remains for appropriate papers to be
    >written to convince the hard-liners of the wisdom of these
    >disunifications. That takes time and effort.

    In this particular example I think that is a gross mischaracterization. The
    mere act of writing more papers will not change the interoperability and
    legacy problems mentioned above.


    PS: the situation for Georgian is yet again different, in my view it has
    few analogies with either the Greek/Coptic or Kurdish examples, but I have
    nothing new to add to the discussion at this time so I elided the mention
    of it in the quoted text above.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 24 2002 - 15:24:08 EST