From: D. Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 06:53:26 EDT
"C J Fynn" <email@example.com> 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 Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 07:37:51 EDT