From: C J Fynn (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 05:46:52 EDT
Peter Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The best argument that Michael has is that Phoenician glyphs look
> very different from Hebrew glyphs. But the variation of some Latin and
> Cyrillic letters can be just as great.
OTOH there does not seem to be much more than a superficial glyph variation
between many of the Indic scripts which *have* been encoded separately.
Compare for instance Kannada and Telugu which share a common origin in the not
so distant past - and are still very near identical - yet are encoded in
their own ranges.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 06:26:32 EDT