Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: John Hudson (
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 16:24:06 CDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    Peter Kirk wrote:

    >> This is not a practical use of variation sequences if, by this, you
    >> mean use of variation selectors. What are you going to do, add a
    >> variation selector after every single base character in the text? ...

    >> ... Are you expecting fonts to support the tiny stylistic variations
    >> between Phoenician, Moabite, Palaeo-Hebrew, etc. -- variations that
    >> are not even cleanly defined by language usage -- with such sequences?

    > No one has suggested this.

    Then what is Ernest suggesting? He wrote that the distinction between stylistic variants
    of unified scripts could be done with variation sequences, i.e. a sequence that 'always
    consists of a base character followed by the variation selector, may be specified as part
    of the Unicode Standard'. He then went further and wrote:

            My point was that I have seen enough evidence to
            absolutely convince me that if both glyph repertoires
            are unified in a single script, variation sequences
            would be *necessary*. [My emphasis.]

    So what is he suggesting if not that every single base character in a text would be
    followed by a variation selector character in order to make a plain-text distinction
    between stylistic variations?

    Why not change the friggin' font? Why not use something other than plain-text?

    > The solution may be a catch-all, but the problem is a real one. Dr
    > Kaufman's response makes it clear that to professionals in the field
    > Everson's proposal is not just questionable but ridiculous. There is
    > certainly some PR work to be done in this area, not name-calling.

    Peter, are we talking about the same thing? Ernest is suggesting bizarre measures to deal
    with a problem -- in my opinion, a non-existent one -- that he sees in *unification*. You
    are arguing against Michael's *dis-unification*. The ridiculousness of Ernest's suggestion
    to use variation selector sequences -- indeed, perhaps he intends it to be ridiculous to
    make a point -- is an argument in favour of dis-unification, since the alternative for
    making a plain-text distinction is so daft.

    My question, again, is whether there is a need for the plain text distinction in the first

    John Hudson

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 16:26:28 CDT