From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 17:56:48 EST
At 23:40 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>From: "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> 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 * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 19:30:57 EST