From: Dean Snyder (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 13:54:16 EST
Kenneth Whistler wrote at 10:35 AM on Tuesday, January 20, 2004:
>Dean Snyder asserted:
>> >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
>This is not the case. *I* mentioned free variation selectors
>during both of the ICE meetings. They weren't discussed at any
>great length, precisely because I and the other encoding experts
>did not feel that they were applicable to the basic encoding issues
Sorry I missed your mention of them at the ICE conferences.
But I was referring to their not being mentioned in these fairly
extensive email discussions on dynamic cuneiform over the last month.
And, to my knowledge, this is the first time we've actually discussed the
issue to any depth.
>They may have a place in some future refinement of Cuneiform, but
>only for representation of notable variants of the *statically*
>encoded list of base signs, *not* for the kind of dynamic sign
>building that you have been advocating.
I don't want to burden your time, but I do not understand the technical
resistance to this. I know there are implementation complexities, time to
market issues, costs, etc. And these are indeed real considerations. But
I do not see the TECHNICAL reasons against it, especially when it is
already being used for somewhat similar purposes.
How does Hangul jamo relate to all of this? From a quick reading of
chapter 11.4 of The Unicode Standard it sounds similar to what I am
thinking about dynamic 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 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 15:43:40 EST