From: Jony Rosenne (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 14:16:13 CDT
I think we should be careful not to introduce new features, such as
variation selectors, to new scripts, unless there is a strong reason to do
The fact that VS are now standard in Unicode does not require every Hebrew
software to support them, even by ignoring them.
There is a huge cost involved.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:35 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: RE: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?
> > Even with a separate Phoenician script, it might be a good idea to
> > provide variation sequences
> Hmmm, gives me an idea: For those people that want to unify,
> would it help if all of the Phoenician characters were
> considered as variation sequences of Hebrew characters, but
> for convenience we used "pre-composed", atomic characters to
> represent each of those sequences? Then people wouldn't
> actually need to use those sequences themselves, 'cause the
> atomic characters would do the same thing. But someone could
> convert the atomic characters into the real variation
> sequences for comparisons with Hebrew-cum-Hebrew, and since
> the variation mappings are 1:1, the same VS would be used for
> all sequences, and it could just as well be a null, virtual
> VS, which would make it way easier to process the data. So
> the conversion would be between the atomic
> Phoenician-variation-of-Hebrew-sequence characters to the
> sequences of virtual-VS + Hebrew characters. And we could
> tell the splitters that we were encoding a distinct script
> just to keep them happy, but we'd be the ones who really know
> what's happening.
> I'm sure even Youtie would go for this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 13:17:42 CDT