From: Mike Ayers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 11:51:07 CDT
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of Kent Karlsson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:51 AM
> > >And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai and Lao in the
> > >default ordering.
> > No, it wouldn't.
> That's not an argument...
Hmmm? Are you looking for some kind of formalized way to say, "That
doesn't make sense?" The burden of proof here is on who claims, not who
disputes. WHY would interleaving Thai and Lao make sense? Do all Thai read
Lao, and vice versa?
> > Such interleaving is the peculiarity. It renders an ordered text
> > illegible to interleave Kannada, Sinhala, and Gujarati.
> Why? If the text that is ordered is in just one of the scripts,
> the result is of couse in that one script.
Which is exactly the same result for noninterleaving. Errr - what
was the point, then?
> If the input is in
> multiple (Indic) scripts, and let's assume that the audience
> (which may be a single person just asking for an sorted list
> of his/her files) can read the Indic scripts used, it may be
> helpful to interleave. (But I will not push this.)
Now let's asume that person can't read all the scripts. Then they
get lots of unintelligible garbage in their sort. This, and the upside is
"may be helpful". Which side did you say you're making the case for?
> B.t.w. interleaving Phoenecian and (square) Hebrew has the same
> property; yet that was mentioned by Ken as a possibility...
> (Even for the "default" table.)
I agree with those who think that interleaving Phoenician ad Hebrew
would not be a good default. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: is
it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be able to
create and use a nondefault sort order?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 11:52:06 CDT