Re: Ewellic

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:35:09 EST

  • Next message: Jim Allan: "Re: Ewellic"

    From: "Jim Allan" <>
    > But if, in your opinion Theban and 3of9 bar code is on the cipher side
    > of a line and Ewellic is on the other side I would like to know the
    > logic on which this line is drawn.

    I think that the line is drawn between scripts used to communicate between
    sentient peoples, and scripts created for personal use without intent to
    communicate with somebody else which can interpret it without the necessary
    help of the first writer, or scripts intended for communications with
    automated systems (such as BarCodes).

    A script used to communicate will inherently be not owned by the author of
    the text. It is a common knowledge shared by a community, and is open to any
    other people that just want to learn it to communicate in his language or
    culture or personal convention or to transmit knowledge across time or to
    store information on automated systems.

    Well I don't say that scripts that don't adhere to this definition must not
    be encoded in Unicode (at least we have characters in Unicode such as
    symbols, that were coded simply because they are often found in texts
    written in a qualifying script, but these symbols have their own meaning or
    function, acting like punctuation or ideographs.) With that definition,
    BarCodes are not a script, as they're a technical convention (similar to the
    Unicode assignment of arbitrary numeric codepoints to characters) which in
    itself has no semantic, but is used to represent a script (or another) in
    order to be read by automated devices that will decode it to render it back
    as a character or something else. Also Barcodes have strict technical glyph
    constraints which do not qualify them as abstract characters.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 19:26:10 EST