From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 16:57:24 EST
On 10/11/2003 12:53, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 10:49 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> Agreed. But if you want to write English with the Theban script, as
>> there are no Theban characters?
> So far we have not seen evidence that the Theban script is other than
> a cypher for the Latin script..
Define "cypher", or "cipher", and I will either provide evidence that
the Theban script is not one or accept that, on your definition, it is
one. In the absence of a definition this discussion is meaningless.
Similarly if the definition is simply a whim as you implied, so a
personal subjective choice against which there can be no evidence. Was
it a whim that Theban and Klingon were rejected?
>> Or what if you want to write English with the RTL version of the
>> Theban script which I found mentioned at
>> http://catb.org/~esr/unicode/theban/? That can't be done by glyph
>> level substitution.
> Why not?
Because the Theban letters will necessarily appear incorrectly in LTR
order, as they are encoded in Unicode as Latin letters with strong LTR
-- 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 - 17:44:39 EST