From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 08:44:42 CDT
Peter Kirk wrote:
> But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are
> convinced of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have
> trusted the judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and
> have either not dared to stand up to him or have simply been
> unqulified to do so? It amazes me that all of the existing scripts
> have apparently been encoded without any properly documented
> justification apart from one expert's unchallenged judgments.
Hey, come on, is this really necessary? "Gee, I disagree with Michael
on this point, and what's more he seems arrogant to me. I bet that
means that he's been running roughshod over the whole Unicode community
for years and nobody's dared to stand up to him." The logic falls apart
there somewhere in the middle. If you really think that some of the
already-encoded scripts are poorly attested, speak up on specifics, not
just "Michael must be running everything (because nobody before me would
ever have stood up to him)." Not that there's much that can be done
about what's already encoded, but vague accusations really do *not* help
the kind of discussion we need to promote around here.
Try to keep it civil, OK?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 11 2004 - 08:45:30 CDT