From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 00:18:47 CDT
Christopher Fynn wrote:
> "Script" is already defined in ISO 10646 as: ...
I was not proposing a new formal definition, I was identifying a *functional* aspect of a
de facto definition as being distinction in plain text. This should go without saying --
characters for plain text is what Unicode encodes --, and yet we have arguments about the
identity of 'scripts' based on criteria (e.g. historical principles and scholarly
classification, whether supporting or opposing particular proposals) other than
distinguishability in plain text. And yet we all know that the encoding of Phoenician, for
example, is eventually going to be determined by the plain text needs or desires of
specific users. I'm simply encouraging people to think about the Unicode notion of script
in these terms, as I think it will save us a lot of wasted bandwidth, energy and frustration.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com Currently reading: Typespaces, by Peter Burnhill White Mughals, by William Dalrymple Hebrew manuscripts of the Middle Ages, by Colette Sirat
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 31 2004 - 00:20:28 CDT