From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 17:46:06 CDT
> [Original Message]
> From: John Hudson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
Whether using variation sequences to separate
Phoenician from Square Hebrew would be daft
would depend upon a number of factors.
How often would both glyph repertoires appear in
the same document?
How frequently would non-Square Hebrew glyphs
How important is it to any particular body of users
to emphasize the relationship of the different
repertoires by using the same base characters?
How large would that body of users be compared
to other users who do not need such an emphasis?
I don't know the answers to the above questions.
I see those answers as determining whether
non-unification or unification supplemented with
variation sequences would be the better choice.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 17:46:42 CDT