From: D. Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 22:12:47 CST
Peter Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 30/04/2004 11:21, Michael Everson wrote:
> > At 06:47 -0400 2004-04-30, John Cowan wrote:
> >> Ah, I see the next battle line forming: Is Fraser a separate script, or
> >> just an oddball application of Latin caps for which we need a few new
> >> ones?
> > It is a separate script.
> In your opinion. Or have you consulted with experts on this one, as you
> failed to do on Phoenician? If so, you might be able to cite a body of
> opinion that it is a separate script. There are clearly some opinions
> that it is not.
> By the way, I know nothing about Fraser.
Can we keep the personal sniping down? I don't agree with Everson's authoritarian
statements either, but Unicode is running at a very high level here.
I don't see why Fraser is fundamentally different from Cherokee. Both scripts use
shapes from the Latin script*, but not with the same range of glyphic variation.
Both are caseless. Unlike Cherokee, Fraser doesn't even use Latin punctuation.
Fraser may not be terribly inventive, but there's not much similarity to Latin
once you look past the glyphs.
-- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT