Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 05:20:40 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Fwd: Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705"

    From: "Peter Constable" <>
    > > Shouldn't both use the same glyph
    > > with
    > > just a distinct positioning? Could it be that the undetermined vowel
    > > tainting
    > > letter be shown as a subscripted star ?
    > NO!!!
    > Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on
    > uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study
    > with which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to
    > merely observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered,
    > inserting only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding.

    OK this is the third response for this question... But I still think it would be
    a bad prececent for Unicode if it starts accepting some very specific notational
    systems used in a fonted document written with a author's own choice, where
    subscripts/superscripts/italics would be used only in relation with author's
    specific notation (are we sure it is even coherent in the document itself?)

    So unless there's a community agreement written as a formal standard where the
    character would be displayed and explained for being referenced in other
    documents using it, I see little value in encoding such characters. Else we'll
    see lots of requests to encode subscripts/superscripts/italics/bolds/cursive
    forms of almost all existing characters of popular scripts like Latin, Greek,
    Cyrillic, Hebrew and why not Hiragana, Katakana, Han, Hangul, Arabic, and almost
    all other existing scripts for their localized technical notational systems
    which do certainly exist in many existing printed books and publications, either
    for linguistic usage, or other technical domains.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 06:02:40 EST