From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 18:18:43 CDT
At 10:30 AM 6/3/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
>>I think it's up to you to develop a workable alternative to parallel
>>coding, if you think that would be preferable.
>Well, I have suggested several alternatives, only to have them all shouted
>down by Michael and rejected by Ken. ... So perhaps someone else can
>suggest an acceptable alternative, for the very real need
I don't see 'a very real need' here.
>(if not for Phoenician, for some other cases) of encoding script variants,
>as defined in http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/standard/index.html#terms. I
>note from section 4.2 of this draft that:
>>Identification of such script variants, while outside the scope of
>>ISO/IEC 10646, is relevant to the content of script codes.
There is more than one definition of script - we've gone over that ground
>Does this imply that script variants should not be identified in Unicode
>plain text? That has implications for proposals for new scripts.
Not all bibliographically relevant variants need to be encoded in plain text.
>>As the discussion has gone on for a long time on the list and has
>>involved only a small number of participants, I suggest that you contact
>>the interested parties offline.
>There are two good reasons for keeping this on the list:
1) I don't see this as a new discussion, but a way to wring life out of a
2) Most successful proposals have been developed off the list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 18:20:25 CDT