Re: New contribution

From: John Jenkins (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 14:01:21 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: New contribution"

    On Apr 29, 2004, at 11:06 AM, Antoine Leca wrote:

    > 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.

    While it is true that the originally 16 bit architecture required Han
    unification, it isn't it's raison d'Ítre. Unicode would have done Han
    unification regardless.

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 14:59:27 EDT