From: E. Keown (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 14:31:46 CDT
Please cc: me if you reply or simply reply off-list.
Yesterday Rick McGowan taught me that I can be 'on
vacation' and still write in--what a fabulous thing...
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>> B. Asserting in the *documentation* that there is a
>> well-known one-to-one equivalence relationship
>> between the letters of this (and other 22CWSA) and
>> Hebrew letters -- including the publication of the
>> mapping tables as proof of concept.
So one could write a proposal, a regular Unicode
proposal, embodying this paragraph, once one
understands the paragraph better?
Peter Kirk wrote:
> No, this doesn't go far enough, even for me so
> almost certainly not for others. This is accepting
> the splitters' case and throwing in a
> footnote in the hope of satisfying the joiners. I
> would think that the least that would be acceptable
> is default interleaved collation.
Dear Peter K.--may I have this in simpler, longer
English?--I can't follow you at all...lost in first
Chris Fynn wrote:
>If you ask Ken & the UTC nicely I should think >a
"linguistic relationship" between each letter and >the
corresponding Hebrew letter might be indicated in >the
name list immediately following the code
>chart (as is done with 0F9D -> 094D). The
>relationship between the letters of the two scripts
>could probably also be explicitly stated in
>the block intro for this script (and maybe in the
>block intro for Hebrew as well). If the one to one
>correspondence is explicitly stated in
>the block intro this is a lot more than "throwing in
Dear Christopher Fynn:
I didn't get this either, beyond one-to-one
correspondence (father was mathematician, used such
words). Simpler, longer version appreciated.
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 14:51:19 CDT