From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 14:41:14 EST
At 14:14 -0500 2004-01-19, Dean Snyder wrote:
> >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.
It is a bad thing in itself.
>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.
You are mistaken. This is a dead end for Cuneiform.
>But, of course, it bears more investigation.
No, it doesn't. We aren't going to use it to encode Cuneiform.
> >all of those are just neutral characters to which some sort of
> >behaviour is ascribed.
>Which is all I'm asking for in cuneiform.
Well, stop. You aren't going to get it.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 15:25:08 EST