Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 14:41:14 EST

  • Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors"

    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 *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 15:25:08 EST