Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 12:55:00 EST

  • Next message: Markus Scherer: "Re: XML Parser for Unicode Big Indian font MSWord document"

    At 12:39 -0500 2004-01-19, Dean Snyder wrote:
    >Michael Everson wrote at 4:54 PM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
    >>No, we do not need to rehearse the pros and cons of the "dynamic"
    >>model for Cuneiform already. Abundant evidence for why it has not
    >>been chosen has already been presented.
    >But NO ONE mentioned free variation selectors in the discussion until

    But it's not MAGIC, Dean. Whether it's one of the "base signs plus
    productive modifiers" you cooked up in December, or whether it's
    viramas, or zero-width joiners, or variation selectors, all of those
    are just neutral characters to which some sort of behaviour is

    The point is that the use of such characters to "dynamically" or
    "productively" produce Cuneiform characters has been rejected as an
    encoding model for Cuneiform.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 13:38:42 EST