Re: Pre-1923 characters?

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 17:56:48 EST

  • Next message: Tom Emerson: "Re: Programmatic description of ideographic characters"

    At 23:40 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
    >From: "Michael Everson" <>
    >> At 22:37 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
    >> >Note that a fundamental property of character identity is its most common
    > > >classification as a vowel, consonnant, or semi-vowel.
    > >
    >> That isn't true. The letter "v" is a vowel in Cherokee, a consonant
    >> in Czech, and (often) a semivowel in Danish.
    >Stop arguing against each of my words. And READ: Is said "most common"
    >on purpose above. Once again you are volontarily interpreting things that I
    >did not say just to find a way to contradict me.

    No, I am not. "Vowel", "consonant", or "semi-vowel" is not a
    "fundamental property of character identity", and as I have shown,
    any given letter can have any number of these values. Which is why
    these "properties" are not "fundamental" to "character identity".

    >I feel now that you have your own reading of the Unicode standard.

    I am sure that many will agree with you. (I am perfectly aware that
    sometimes I am less patient than I might be, as well. That's a
    character issue, perhaps.)

    >But stop saying always that your position is neutral, objective.

    I didn't. I said that you said something that wasn't true.

    >You have the right to think that the representative glyphs are not
    >representative at all. I think the opposite. You may not like these glyphs,
    >because you, as a typographic expert, would have designed them

    Actually, I vetted a great many of the chart glyphs (GHA especially)
    to ensure that they were as correctly representative as possible.

    >I really think that you are unable to accept any words that you have
    >not said yourself, and you accept no compromize and prefer a
    >systematic and, once again, dogmatic positions as THE only allowed
    >and omnipotent expert for all questions regarding Unicode.

    I'm not omnipotent, nor do I speak for the Unicode Consortium. I'm
    just an expert. When I am dogmatic, it is (as in this case) often due
    to the fact that we have a *standard* here. You were misusing or
    misunderstanding and misusing the terms "normative" and
    "informative". That distinction *is* dogma.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 19:30:57 EST