Re: New contribution

From: D. Starner (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 06:53:26 EDT

  • Next message: C J Fynn: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"

    "C J Fynn" <> writes:
    > It always going to be harder to disunify data at a later date than to unify it
    > since with plain, un-tagged text there is no indication of which script the
    > original text was written in, unless it is encoded with a seperate sub-set of
    > Unicode characters.
    This is a general argument for disunification, though. Honestly, how much of this
    data is going to be stored in untagged texts? Even if it is, it's likely to be
    labeled with source and which script it was written in, the later quite possibly
    at a level it would be absurd for Unicode to encode at. If it is tagged text,
    you always have the option of tagging it with the specific script code from
    Everson's (well, ISO's) standard. Even if it doesn't have a full set of tags for
    Middle Eastern scripts that Unicode considers to be variants of Hebrew, I'm
    sure Everson would be happy to provide them. (Especially as that standard
    distinguishes scripts like Fraktur and Gaelic.)
    There's a lot of times when one might want to distinguish particular fonts or
    scripts (finely defined) where Unicode doesn't and shouldn't, especially in
    the academic areas where this script will be used. Tagging lets you distinguish
    anything from Fraktur versus Roman down to scribe Joesph versus scribe Paul.
    That's the tool for the job.

    Sign-up for Ads Free at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 07:37:51 EDT