From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:04:27 EST
From: "Kenneth Whistler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Rather than encode a half dozen different
> "scripts" for this, one for each local orthographic tradition, the
> entire script was carefully "unified" to enable representation of
> any of the local varieties accurately with the overall script
> encoding. I suspect that a similar approach will be required to
> finish the encoding of Tifinagh.
At least! That's what I wanted to hear: that the script will be
encoded on a glyphic approach, with no intented association
with the actual phoneme they represent.
The ordering of these glyphs and their naming will possibly
be consistent with one culture, but not with another.
And each culture will use only a subset of the encoded glyphs...
And so UCA default collation will work reasonnably well for
one culture and not the others that will require tailoring.
Now, how will we define foldings, and text boundaries for
the other cultures? I don't know...
How will we perform intercultural semantic analysys for
texts that share the same words and radicals? Difficult
to answer... It will even be hard to define any
transliteration scheme between them (it would require
identification of the cultural convention, and not only
of the language, and texts written for one culture will
look as completely undecipherable in another one).
Such problems do not exist with the same level between
Serbian Latin and Serbian Cyrillic, as there's no ambiguity
in the transliteration to use...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:42:17 EST