From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 08:41:20 CDT
At 14:07 +0100 2004-05-25, Christopher Fynn wrote:
>If script classification is arbitrary or nominal, isn't there is
>still a case for attempting some consistency or following a single
>model within a particular standard like the UCS? If script
>classification in the UCS has been largely based on a particular
>historical model which Michael and others subscribe to, are there
>good reasons to adopt other (arbitrary) systems now?
Quite the reverse. To deviate from the current practice puts the
burden on those who would do the deviation to prove their case. The
unification proposed has not been shown to be other than an
over-unification. The case put has not been convincing.
>At least that classification has the virtue of being well known and
>around for a long time - even if some contemporary scholars in some
>fields disagree with it.
Just so. And by maintaining a consistent approach, we create a
standard which is predictable and universal.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 08:42:32 CDT