Re: [BULK] - Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts

Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 15:00:48 CDT

  • Next message: "RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)"

    Peter Kirk scripsit:

    > Well, I accepted somewhat reluctantly that Phoenician should be
    > separately encoded because a small number of users want it to be,
    > although a majority apparently do not want it to be.

    Neither you nor anyone else knows what the majority wants, because most
    interested parties have never even heard of this debate. It's natural
    to suppose that The Majority R Us, but there's no evidence for it.

    In any case, it's the majority in the UTC (and ultimately the Consortium)
    that matters, and the UTC works mostly by consensus anyway.

    > This would not be
    > an acceptable position if Unicode intended to force all users of
    > Phoenician to move immediately to the new script - although it would
    > actually make much more sense to do so.

    Unicode doesn't wield force, nor does the UTC, nor the Consortium,
    nor its members (except for the Governments of India and Pakistan,
    who probably don't give a RRRA about this issue).

    John Cowan
    [R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before
    Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do
    with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among
    the orthodox -- thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite
    undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness.  --T. H. Huxley

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 14 2004 - 15:01:22 CDT