From: Chris Jacobs (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 12:49:20 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <email@example.com>
To: "Chris Jacobs" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Pigpen/Masonic/Poundex
> Chris Jacobs scripsit:
> > But you still need to pick one of the variants as the _plaintext_ (in
> > crypto sense) variant, and then you can deem the others to be crypted by
> > monoalphabetic substitution.
> There are lots of ways to do it, but no compelling need for
There is no need for unicoded pigpen. However, If you _did_ want to do
pigpen in unicode you _would_ need to standardise it.
This seems to be a clear difference from colorful scripts, where I think
there is an agreement about which glyph represents which sound.
So I think the analogy between pigpen and colorful scripts does not hold.
> "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
> useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that
> address all questions by piling on ridiculous
> internal links in forms which are hideously
> over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:41:49 EDT