From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 18:04:34 EST
William Overington asked:
> > And nobody out there is volunteering to do it.
> I was told that I could commission it.
That statement by Michael Everson was not a *permission*, but
merely a statement of fact. Anyone can commission any expert
they like, under contract to produce whatever output or
specification the purchaser would like. That includes you.
> I described what I thought was a
> good design brief for the list and asked how much it would cost. I am still
> waiting to find out.
Well, the short answer is that it would cost a *lot*. But don't
expect the Unicode discussion list to price out contracts for
> A lot of the information needed to prepare the numbered list is apparently
> in files, it is just that it is not available to people.
Dream on. The information needed exists in books and other
reference source in libraries, book shops, and other collections
across India -- and, for that matter, around the world. It is
"merely" a matter of collecting the relevant information and
distilling it into succinct, yet complete, statements of the
relevant information needed for proper typographic practice
for each script, for each style of each script, for each local
typographic tradition for each style, and so on.
And once you start down that road -- as John Hudson pointed out --
you would quickly find that the problem is not one of
"enumerating the list of required ligatures", but is rather
more complicated than that -- and that the term "ligature" is
not even the pertinent typographic construct of most interest
to Indian rendering.
> If the Unicode Consortium really does not wish to include this important
> project within its scope,
It does not.
> then it will need to be achieved in some other
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 18:44:28 EST