Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 07:10:49 EST

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"

Previous message: Michael Everson: "Samaritan shan"
In reply to: Dean Snyder: "Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static"
Next in thread: Mark Davis: "Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 22:32 -0500 2004-01-14, Dean Snyder wrote:

>I'm still hoping for even more technical feedback from the Unicode
>community on this issue. I would like to be convinced that the dynamic
>model is a bad idea.

Whether you are or are not convinced, it certainly is a bad idea.
That's why we have been preparing proposals based on the static,
sign-based model. Ken Whistler has gone to the trouble of rehearsing
the refutation of all of the points on the Cuneiform list.

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Previous message: Michael Everson: "Samaritan shan"
In reply to: Dean Snyder: "Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static"
Next in thread: Mark Davis: "Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 07:52:27 EST