Re: Compatibility equivalents, was: Qamats Qatan

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Sun May 16 2004 - 11:07:56 CDT

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Re: Middle stroke of U+042D"

    Peter Kirk a écrit :

    > Well, at least "façade" and "facade" collate together at the top
    > level, with the default collation weights, and so one will match the
    > other in simple searches.

    [PA] I was simply trying to say -- not that I always express myself well
    -- that adding some characters may force additional processing (here in
    the collation, elsewhere if a cedilla exists as a combining character
    in normalisations and rendering). Adding characters is not as innocent a
    process as some seem to say : «We just add characters and that's it, you
    are not forced to do anything about it». If it is true that one is not
    forced to use them as a writer in the script, when one does not control
    the writers or sources and one has to process several sources (collate,
    render, search them), one is then forced to implement certain additional
    processes (for excellent reasons if the characters are indeed
    necessary). This is why I believe one must carefully review the pros and
    cons before adding new characters, they may well be unified with
    existing ones, for example.

    > Again, if the separate Punic script were to be compatibility
    > equivalent to Phoenician or Hebrew I would not have strong objections;
    > but otherwise I am sure that there would be strong objections on the
    > grounds that yet further splitting of what is logically the same
    > script used for closely related languages leads to even more confusion.

    [PA] I would have like Michael to say that splitting may lead to
    confusion with little gain..since he suggested ths unification.

    Note that I believe unification of Neo-punic with Phoenician is the
    prudent course to take (for the reasons I explained : introducing new
    characters has a cost and does force people to do something about them).
    Otherwise, if Unicode has space, tailoring collations is The Proper
    Thing To Do and «Unicode doesn't force people to do anything. Unicode
    makes characters available for those who wish to use them. », why not
    encode Neo-Punic ? After all, one could make a case for it : Neo-punic
    is a remote descendant from "Canaanite" (genealogically as much as the
    Aramaic-Square Hebrew branch, it also retains the 22 primitive Canaanite
    characters), pretty different as far as glyphs are concerned (some
    simple strokes may represent a "b", a "d" or an "r", a Saint-Andrew's
    cross may represent "m" or alef), has three subcategories (Carthago,
    "Tripolitaine" and "Maghrebine"), some inscriptions (cf. Cherchell) are
    mixed Neo-punic and Punic (how would one represent them in plain text?),
    it uses matres lectionis (reusing gutturals having nearly completely
    disappeared in the spoken language), etc.

    P. .A

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 16 2004 - 11:08:42 CDT