From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 13:21:12 EST
At 09:13 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
>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.
Who knows? You adduce no evidence.
>>>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,
That would be stupid. What use the Masons might make of the script is
>does that imply that Azerbaijani Latin texts should be encoded as a
>cipher or Azerbaijani Cyrillic and not with Unicode Latin?
That would also be stupid, and this thread is exasperating.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 13:57:51 EST