From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 16:24:06 CDT
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
place?
John Hudson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 16:26:28 CDT