From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 14:01:20 EDT
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> I think we need to keep Peter Constable's point in mind that current usage
> should not define the limits of Unicode functionality. Since the principle
> is that all sequences of character codes are permitted (2.10), it seems
> wrong to supply a fix for only "the small number of attested sequences".
Well, that's true up to a point, but only up to a point. Tomorrow someone
may conceive a need to express Tibetan using Hebrew vowel points instead of
Tibetan vowel signs, whilst keeping the Tibetan consonants, but he
should not complain if neither rendering nor syllabication works properly.
As UTR #11 says on a related point, there simply is no traditional Japanese
way of typesetting Devanagari.
-- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com email@example.com "'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'" --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 14:46:00 EDT