From: Dean Snyder (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 20:53:46 EST
Michael Everson wrote at 10:23 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
>discussion has mostly been on the Cuneiform list
>(where it belongs) but Dean keeps coming over
>here and trying to drum up support for his
>ill-conceived and ever-mutating idea.
I am not trying to drum up support for a dynamic cuneiform encoding
model; I am trying to find out technical encoding information as to its
feasibility. I meant it when I said, in a previous email here, "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
The encoding model issues at hand should not be decided by cuneiform
specialists without broad input by encoding specialists; and it is simply
a fact that this Unicode list has far more encoding expertise on it than
the cuneiform list. In fact, I am not aware of a better email list to
which to pose such questions.
And my idea has not been "ever-mutating"; I have today the same idea for
a dynamic cuneiform model that I expressed in my first email on the
subject over a month ago. What has mutated is my knowledge on the subject
and hence my terminology. This is not to say that my idea will not mutate.
>Even the Buddha taught that anger can be useful,
>as a tool to get through to someone who thinks
>nothing is wrong. Well, Dean's harping on this
>issue is wrong, and is irritating lots of people.
>A lot. And this needs to be shut down.
We could have saved a full month's worth of emails on this subject if you
had only mentioned free variation selectors on day one. Did you know
about them? Didn't you notice the connection between them and what I was
suggesting for cuneiform? If so, why did you not tell us about them? It
would have been great, and much less "irritating" for us all, if we had
only been given this information early on, instead of having to ferret
much of it out on our own.
Only now, with my having just learned of the mere EXISTENCE of free
variation selectors in Unicode, and having made that existence known to
the cuneiformists on the cuneiform email list, do I feel we can
adequately begin an, at least, meagerly informed discussion of the issue
as it pertains to a dynamic model for cuneiform in Unicode. This is one
way Unicode has dealt with the issue of mapping an encoded character
sequence to single unencoded and unpredictable glyph.
SOMEONE at SOMETIME must have thought that free variation selectors were
a good idea for Mongolian in Unicode. If the thinking has changed on this
since then, I would love to hear about why it has changed. Is Mongolian
functioning well in Unicode or not? If not, what specifically in it is
broken, or is at least sub-optimal? And what are suggested solutions for
fixing Mongolian in Unicode if it is indeed problematic?
Thanks for your help.
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 18 2004 - 21:22:48 EST