From: James Kass (jameskass@att.net)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 19:35:40 CDT
Dean Snyder wrote,
> Or (making the missed point explicit):
>
> 6) Show that the basic assumption behind the question, "lots of potential
> users demonstrates the usefulness of an encoding", is in fact a bad
> assumption, and one the UTC itself does not consider decisive.
It's possible that I've missed your point yet again, but it's also
possible that you failed to make one.
Although the UTC doesn't consider such a factor to be *decisive*, it
*is* a factor for consideration -- just one such factor among many.
If you wish to be contrary, in other words to assert that it is a
"bad assumption", then you must adopt the position that:
'lots of potential users doesn't demonstrate the usefulness
of an encoding'
-or-
'lots of potential users demonstrates that an encoding
would be useless'.
Either way, this position is indefensible.
> If the UTC did consider the potential for large numbers of users as a
> decisive criterion for encoding a script, Japanese would be separately
> encoded. I can assure you, that there would be many users for a
> separately encoded Japanese, just as there would be for a separately
> encoded Fraktur, many more, of course, than users for Phoenician.
When I joined this group I had many misconceptions about CJK
unification. Would it be possible for me to suggest to you that,
in order to avoid embarrassment similar to that which I experienced,
you might want to review the various complex rules concerning
CJK unification, which are in the Unicode book, before speaking
authoritatively in a public forum upon a subject of which you
apparently know little or nothing? (Just some friendly advice.)
The Japanese syllabaries aren't even unified with each other, let
alone with their kanji originals. Many CJK ideographs are used
in common by Chinese, Japanese, etc. There are some stylistic
differences between some of these ideographs. The rules
governing ideographic unification are a bit lengthy, but, if one
takes the time to read the standard, those rules do make sense.
I reject your assurance that "there would be many users for a
separately encoded Japanese" as it simply isn't true, although
we might agree that there would be as many users ("very few")
for a separate Fraktur as there would for a separate Japanese.
In fairness, though, it's entirely possible that many users would
welcome a separate encoding for Fraktur. Convince me, show
us your proofs.
> And
> since Japanese and Fraktur are not separately encoded just because there
> would be lots of people who would use such an encoding,
This premise is flawed. Read what you wrote. Do you honestly believe
that the reason that Japanese and Fraktur are not separately encoded
is because lots of people would use such an encoding?
> why would you, on
> that same faulty basis, support a separate encoding for Phoenician? It's
> inconsistent thinking, and other reasons will need to be found.
Other reasons have already been given; politely, rudely, crudely,
eloquently, and repeated often. Can't we just disagree?
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 19:36:31 CDT