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

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 15:46:18 CDT

  • Next message: Markus Scherer: "base16k - Efficient Binary Data Encoding in Unicode Text"

    > From: []
    On Behalf
    > Of D. Starner

    > Shouldn't the encoding be geared towards those who use it the most?

    Certainly how heavily / regularly it is used by different groups of
    users is a consideration, but not necessarily the only one. How would
    you compare (hypothetically) 50 that use it daily versus 5,000,000 that
    use it a few times a year? If the problem were all but impossible to fix
    for the 50, and not much of an issue for the 5M, you'd obviously go with
    the needs of the 50; but that decision is made based on more than just
    populations and frequency of usage. And if you're a product vendor, you
    might be concerned more about how many product-support calls either
    option is likely to generate than sheer number of users.

    > So far, all the people who actually use this script on a day to day
    > who have actually spoken up have been in favor of unification. (I may
    > be mistaken; it's been a long thread.)

    The people who have spoken up and who might use it on a day-to-day basis
    are paleographers, some of whom are Semiticists and some of whom are
    not. The Semitic paleographers have spoken in favour of unification,
    while all others (I think) have spoken against unification.

    Peter Constable
    Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
    Microsoft Windows Division

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 15:46:54 CDT