RE: PH technical issues (was RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 08:50:24 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: [BULK] - Re: Vertical BIDI"

    > From: []
    > Behalf Of D. Starner

    > > > * A comparable discussion could appear involving Fraktur and Latin
    > > characters
    > > > and Chao and Chang.
    > >
    > > I agree, but only somewhat...

    > That was the point of Chao vs. Chang...

    BTW, it occurred to me that your responses have focused on smaller
    details of one usage scenario, and not the most relevant part of my
    earlier message, viz.

    So, saying that, while people have asked for plain-text distinction of
    their text, they can accomplish what they need using markup, and it's
    not unreasonable to ask them to do so...

    That seems to me to be a greater level of inconvenience for the
    anti-unification paleographers as the pro-unification paleographers
    would face with distinct encodings (needing to fold character
    distinctions), and probably for implementers wanting to support both as
    well as for general users.

    I followed you down the hole of dissecting that particular usage
    scenario, so I'm equally to blame here. I think it would be more
    productive to come back up a level: OK, you think the scenario I
    provided wasn't reasonable, and may still think so in spite of my
    feedback on your reasons. Do you think there are other reasonable
    scenarios that support the same conclusion? the opposite conclusion? Are
    reasonable and representative scenarios likely to support or refute my
    comment that needing markup will be a greater inconvenience for the
    non-unification proponents than would be character folding for the
    pro-unification proponents? That's the important question.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 08:52:10 CDT