From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 13:10:36 CDT
On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 10:36 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain text
>> usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and didn't
>> receive an answer: should Unicode encode a script whose ONLY
>> demonstrated usage is in alphabet charts? I think the answer is not,
>> because essentially these charts are graphics of glyphs, not text.
> Perhaps if you would look at the proposal you would see the
> demonstrated use of the script given in the figures there.
Stop poking fun at me and treating me as an imbecile. Of course you know
that I know that this script was actually used. The question is, is it a
separate script, or is it a set of variant glyphs for what should be a
unified 22 character Semitic script (although currently known as
Hebrew)? This question of unification or disunification needs to be
argued carefully. Your failure to argue, merely to assert that you are
correct and to poke fun at your opponents, just makes you look stupid
and makes the UTC more likely to reject your proposal.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT