Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 15:31:48 CDT
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> >As for the speculation that "these users have been almost unanimously
> >opposed to the proposal", I consider the remark inaccurate yet find
> >myself unable to attack your credibility in this regard.
> Well, this sounds like a careful circumlocution for an ad hominem
Sounds more like a joke to me.
> This is what Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew is, in my opinion. I am glad to
> see that ISO has recognised this intermediate category, but I am sad
> that Unicode does not seem to have recognised even it existence. Does
> the ISO standard suggest how a "script variant" might be encoded?
> Separate code points? Something like variation sequences? Or only by markup?
ISO 15924 has nothing to do with encoding, so it has nothing to suggest.
Heretofore, Unicode has always encoded script variants at the same codepoints,
leaving the distinction to a higher-level protocol (which could be explicit
markup or an implicit convention).
-- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash, The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!" It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall, But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 15:42:56 CDT