From: Dean Snyder (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 14:14:17 EST
Michael Everson wrote at 5:55 PM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
>At 12:39 -0500 2004-01-19, Dean Snyder wrote:
>>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,
It may not be magic but I was basically told it was taboo in Unicode.
Before I ran across free variation selectors in Unicode, people were
saying that this type of model was a bad thing in and of itself and that
it was a glyph description language and out of scope.
But now that I know that it is already part of the model for some scripts
in Unicode and is being considered for further use, as in Han and Hebrew,
I question whether this is the technical hair-brained, off-the-wall idea
some have tried to make it out to be.
But, of course, it bears more investigation.
>all of those are just neutral characters to which some sort of
>behaviour is ascribed.
Which is all I'm asking for in cuneiform.
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 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 14:45:14 EST