Re: New contribution

From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 13:06:56 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: New contribution"

    On Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:18 AM C J Fynn va escriure:
    > OTOH there is the example of all the Brahmi derived scripts which
    > have *not* been unified.

    a) *All* is incorrect. Only the ones in current use have been encoded (so
    far).

    b) We have several problems with legacy encodings here (the various states
    of ISCII, and the fact that Thai did choose one model and ISCII another).
    Also there is the rendering problems that Peter aluded (consider that a good
    number of Brahmi derived scripts are still not handled correctly on the
    mainstream boxes; we are in 2004, TUS 1.0 is now 12 years old).

    c) The very reason for Han unification was the need to shoelace it into 16
    bits (it is also the 'marque de fabrique' and the most clear success of
    Unicode). There was no such incentive for the present Indian scripts. Would
    have it been the case, or if the dilemma would have been between one script
    in BMP or several in PSP, I bet they would have been unified promptly, and
    the rendering engines would have been sent to h**l.

    Antoine



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 14:13:34 EDT