From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 09:59:42 CDT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Behalf Of Michael Everson
> You don't know whether or not they were only used in a single
> document. You know only that I *own* that single document. You are
> declaring the characters guilty until proved innocent. That's
Indeed. Didn't everyone have to become a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Character Rights before subscribing?
> Khoisian phonology is rather
> esoteric, after all.
Esoteric?? (Do we perhaps need to review the meaning of this word?)
> > > Private use? Be
> >> serious, John. That's a pretty ridiculous suggestion.
> >I am serious. The PUA is the proper place for these things.
> I am gobsmacked. On what grounds are these not characters? They are
> not glyph representations of other characters. The PRE-PALATAL N is
> described in terms of its phonology as being neither N nor N WITH
> LEFT HOOK.
If I publish a web page using DIAGONAL X WITH TURNED HOOK to represent
something that's not quite this or that cardinal phonetic value, does it
automatically become a character worthy of encoding?
This isn't about character rights. It's about criteria for deciding what
to encode or not to encode.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 10:01:58 CDT