From: D. Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 03:36:12 CDT
> (Note that this site considers "Palaeo" a separate script, this is quite
> clear in the paragraph quoted above.)
And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
including one by Michael Everson. Even if we assume knowledge and competence,
we still can't assume they're using the same definition for a seperate script
as Unicode does.
> Imagine going back in time ten years or so and approaching the
> user community with the concept of a double-byte character
> encoding system which could be used to store and transfer
> electronic data in a standard fashion. If they'd responded to
> this notion by indicating that their needs were already being
> well-served by web-Hebrew, would the Unicode project have
> been scrapped?
Yes. How many millions of dollars have gone into defining and implementing
Unicode? Do you honestly think that Microsoft and IBM and Apple would
have spent all the money they have if their users were well-served by
what you call web-Hebrew?
> Should the proposal proceed as planned, or should we bow our heads
> to political pressure before burying them in the sands of time?
So now if you think that two scripts that are isomorphic and closely related
should be unified, then you're exerting "political pressure"?
-- ___________________________________________________________ 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