RE: New contribution

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 15:15:23 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"

    > From: []
    On Behalf
    > Of Michael Everson

    > Structural one-to-oneness does not by default exclude a
    > script from being separately encoded. Compare the scripts of India.

    Just a comment on the argumentation, not necessarily the conclusion:

    I haven't studied each of the scripts of India yet, but the ones I've
    looked at so far are all distinct from the others in some significant
    way. Maybe one could propose a unified set of characters, but certainly
    the rendering issues would be distinct: some have half forms, while
    others do not; some have a single subjoined form, some have several;
    some have reph as a combining mark, while some do not; some allow or
    require CV ligatures, while others do not; etc. So, even if you could
    make a one-to-one association between all the characters, I would not
    describe these scripts as being structurally the same. Thus, I'm not
    sure the scripts of India are the best comparison in this case.

    Unless there are behaviours in Phoenician that distinguish it from

    Peter Constable
    Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
    Microsoft Windows Division

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 16:14:28 EDT