From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 14:20:11 EST
On 10/11/2003 10:21, Michael Everson wrote:
> 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.
There is not much point in producing evidence if there are no agreed
> ... this thread is exasperating.
Yes, but there are still no agreed criteria for distinguishing a cipher
from an alternative alphabet. The suggested criteria (one to one
mapping, lack of "convention", intent of secrecy etc) are problematic
and contradictory. In the absence of criteria the suspicion remains that
decisions e.g. not to encode Theban and Klingon are purely subjective.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 15:06:54 EST