From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 18:32:32 CDT
At 11:10 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
>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,
>>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.
You are the one who said that its *only* demonstrated usage is in
>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)?
It's a separate script.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT