Re: Ciphers (Was: Berber/Tifinagh)

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 12:13:59 EST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ, CGJ and combination"

    On 10/11/2003 04:50, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 04:04 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >> Languages formerly written in Cyrillic are now being written in Latin
    >> script with a one to one mapping. Proposals are in preparation for
    >> extra Hebrew characters used by particular communities for western
    >> languages which are more commonly written in Latin script. But if
    >> these usages of the Latin and Hebrew alphabets are mere ciphers,
    >> should they be supported by Unicode?
    > Not if they are "mere ciphers".

    But are they? This was the preceding question, which you didn't answer.

    >> And then what about the use by Freemasons of the Samaritan script?
    > Irrelevant. The Samaritan script is roadmapped already because of its
    > real use.

    So, if Masonic Samaritan script texts (no intention of secrecy there, by
    the way) should be encoded as a cipher of Latin and not with the Unicode
    Samaritan script, does that imply that Azerbaijani Latin texts should be
    encoded as a cipher or Azerbaijani Cyrillic and not with Unicode Latin?

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 13:02:15 EST