Re: Ciphers (Was: Berber/Tifinagh)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 13:21:12 EST

  • Next message: Andrew C. West: "Re: Handy table of combining character classes"

    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
    their business.

    >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 *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 13:57:51 EST