From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:22:38 EST
On 10/11/2003 16:26, Michael Everson wrote:
> What, you want me to give you a loophole? Look, it took YEARS to get
> Nuskhuri disunified from Mkhedruli, and Coptic from Greek. It was
> troublesome to get YOGH disunified from EZH. I'm still working on
> Cyrillic KU and WE. You think I'm bothered about Theban? ESR's
> proposal shows it displayed *carved on objects*. You think that
> convinces me of a plain-text need for it, disunified from Latin?
> Think again.
Michael, you are doing a lot of good work which I appreciate on
important scripts. I don't expect you to drop it and rush to encode
Theban. I would be quite happy if you said that it was something that in
principle might be encoded some time, if sufficient evidence is
presented e.g. for its use for writing certain books, if someone else
wanted to do the hard work, when everything else in the queue ahead of
it has been dealt with, etc etc. What I object to is the argument that
it should be rejected because you personally don't have time to work on
it right now.
-- 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 - 21:04:57 EST