From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 16:53:43 EST
On 18/01/2004 12:20, Michael Everson wrote:
> I do NOT believe that this thread should be discussed on the Unicode
> List. I am responding to it only because Dean has let loose another
> brace of hares. Let us reign them in, and kill this thread now.
> Because we are not going to use a "dynamic" model to encode Cuneiform.
> Now have DONE.
I find this kind of attempted censorship of technical discussion highly
distasteful, especially when conducted in such a disrespectful (!) ad
hominem manner. Michael, it is quite clear that the "decision" to use
the static model, which you claim has been made finally (although as I
understand it the UTC has yet to come to a conclusion on the issue),
does not have the full backing and confidence of the experts on
cuneiform script (I am not one; nor, I think, are you). The implication
is clearly that the whole issue needs to be referred back to these
experts for further consideration. It will simply not work to impose on
them a solution which is unacceptable to a good number of them. If there
are good technical arguments against what Dean is proposing (and I agree
with you at least that following the Mongolian model does not look
promising - the distinction Dean makes in his last paragraph between
graphical difference and semantic difference shows that the same model
does not fit), then those arguments should be made in a proper technical
So please take this issue back to the drawing board, and discuss it
again on the proper list, in a proper respectful manner on both sides.
Michael, I think you are probably right on the technical issue. But you
need to persuade Dean of that by proper argument and not impose your
solution on him against his will.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 18 2004 - 17:33:04 EST