From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 15:15:23 EDT
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
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
Hebrew.
Peter
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