From: C J Fynn (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 12:08:57 CST
"John Hudson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Rick McGowan wrote:
> > And... There *is* a proposal for a unified ancient Brahmi that encompasses
> > several things (non-modern) that also could be encoded on their own. This
> > isn't mature yet.
> More than once during this discussion, I've thought that something
approaching a general
> principle might be stated as 'related dead scripts should be unified; their
> descendants may be separately encoded'.
> John Hudson
Where two 'related dead scripts' have substantial differences in shaping
requirements this might create major implementation difficulties on some
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT