From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 18:02:58 CDT
From: "Asmus Freytag" <email@example.com>
> 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.
I have to agree here: ISO 15924 have a more precise definition of scripts needed
for classification of texts according to their effective rendered style and
legibility. Unicode itself does not define scripts. It just uses one or more ISO
15924 "scripts" (écriture) to unify them into the same "Unicode script block" by
sharing the same code points for characters considered, bibliographically, as
distinct due to their legibility.
May be Unicode could be more clear, now that ISO 15924 is well standardized and
published, by stating clearly which ISO15924 scripts are supported, and how they
are grouped/unified (this would be in addition to the description of scripts in
each chapter of the standard; instead of just naming the supported scripts, the
normative ISO 15924 codes could be explicitly stated; the chapter on the Unicode
support for Latin scripts would say clearly that "Latf" is unified within
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT