From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 14:08:40 CDT
At 09:20 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 03:28 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
>> > My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script
>> from Latin.
>>Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is exactly
>>on-point to my message--it is useful to distinguish scripts in many cases
>>that Unicode may not.
>Latg and Latf are variants of the Latin script, distinguished in ISO 15924
>for the reasons stated in ISO 15924. Those reasons are specific, and are
>not in the least bit analogous to the question of the identity of
>Phoenician and Hebrew scripts.
The classification of written materials for bibliographical use is
different from the classification of writing systems for encoding. For a
reader faced with the choice of locating a Fraktur or Roman edition of a
German classic, having that information is clearly valuable and meaningful.
On the other hand, for the purposes of encoding, being able to sort,
transmit and search both texts the same way is more important and the
distinction is properly relegated to fonts (i.e. to rich text) in this case.
This is not really a new concept.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT