Re: Mongolian Unicoding (was Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors)

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 06:50:08 EST

  • Next message: Andrew C. West: "Re: Mongolian Unicoding (was Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors)"

    On 20/01/2004 00:36, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > ...
    > Chinese ideographs don't quite fit either Andrews example or my reply
    > - the nature
    > of the problem is different due to both the large set of base
    > characters and
    > the (potentially) large number of (non-deterministic) variations --
    > together with
    > the fact that ignoring the variation in display and processing while
    > retaining
    > information about it in the code might the hing to do. (None of the
    > other scripts
    > have those sorts of issues).
    But cuneiform, where we started, may have similar issues. Especially in
    archaic cuneiform there was apparently a very large repertoire of signs
    in perhaps non-deterministic variation. I don't think this is the best
    way to select between signs in regular use in later cuneiform, and so I
    don't support Dean's suggestion of using them as part of a general
    cuneiform model (quite apart from the argument that a decision taken a
    few years ago is said to be irreversible). But VSs may be useful in
    future extensions to support archaic cuneiform, just as they may have a
    role in supporting unusual (archaic?) CJK variants.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 08:22:49 EST