From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 08:06:15 EDT
On 29/04/2004 02:46, C J Fynn wrote:
>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.
Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. One past mistake of Unicode, or
decision it had to take for compatibility reasons, does not create a
The problem is that there seem to be no guidelines, only possible
precedents, each of which seems to have its own particular history and
its own problems and so should not be used as a precedent.
So there are two possible approaches. One is to try to reach consensus
among experts in the script in question. The other is to let one
individual, who is not an expert in the particular script although he
may be in scripts in general, decide each such question. I hope the
latter approach will not be taken.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 08:49:06 EDT