From: Jony Rosenne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 15 2004 - 03:14:57 CDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Andries
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:16 PM
> To: Michael Everson
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Majority of community important, inclusion not
> forcing people to do anything (Re: [BULK] - Re: Interleaved
> collation of related scripts)
> > Unicode doesn't force people to do anything. (Well, apart from using
> > smart font technology for a lot of scripts, but that's not relevant
> > here.) Unicode makes characters available for those who
> wish to use them.
> [PA] Surely Unicode does not make all characters available :
> it rejects
> some and unifies some. Why reject or unify if their inclusion
> would not
> pose a problem ? I somehow have the impression that the sheer
> of characters (duplicates for instance) does have an effect
> on users and
> forces certain processing (normalisation sometimes, decomposition in
> some cases, changing transcoding filters in other cases
> (what are the
> Coptic users having Coptic texts encoded as Greek data going to do?),
> changing/adding Cmap for some fonts (Coptic ones previously indexed
> with Greek code points ?)), etc. to achieve the desired effect.
> P. A.
Having Qamats Qatan as a regular Unicode character will have an effect on
the majority of users who do not know or care for the distinction.
If anything, it should be some kind of glyph variant.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 15 2004 - 02:17:07 CDT