From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 15:27:11 CDT
I want to point out that the inclusion of a name in N2311 does not mean a
*guaranteed* place in Unicode for it. All it means is that according to our best
current information, we're trying to reserve space for what we think will be
there. But until we get and assess actual concrete proposals, we can't determine
whether two proposed scripts should be unified, or one proposed script should be
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
----- Original Message -----
To: "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tue, 2004 May 04 12:51
Subject: Re: New contribution
> Michael Everson scripsit:
> > Well. Depends what you mean by "forms". Our taxonomy currently lists
> > Samaritan, Square Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Mandaic as modern (RTL)
> > forms of the parent Phoenician.
> Arabic and Syriac have very specialized shaping behavior which makes them
> obviously distinct from their parent form. I believe that Mandaic has
> this property too.
> > >Ah, so the next protracted debate is going to be whether Samaritan
> > >should also be encoded using the existing square Hebrew characters.
> > So far participants on this discussion seem to have stipulated that
> > Samaritan be encoded as a modern and unique script.
> I have merely postponed the question. I would still prefer to see an
> overall plan with justification (that is, an update of N2311) before any
> of these scripts get encoded.
> Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan
> that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com
> --Susan McCarthy (adapted) email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT