Date: Tue Feb 22 2005 - 22:09:24 CST
No such luck! :)
I've got Peter Kirk on my side at least.
As a general topic, this is the most important possible discussion that could
be had -- on the basic structural functionality of Unicode itself.
And as well as the general subject, I will be detailing some further specific
cases that really need to be solved -- somehow.
I will be illustrating "differentiation" solutions to those problems -- and
that will be the ideal opportunity for you to show that "differentiation" is
*not* needed -- because you are able to actually solve, and not ignore, that
real-world problem with some other approach.
Your Serbian "t" solution is awkward but at least usable. We'll see about
other cases -- umlaut vs. diaeresis in particular.
However, it sounds like you may simply be interested in maintaining and
defending the status quo, and are irritated by even hearing an open debate
which challenges that.
Email filtering -- or simply not reading posts on this subject -- should solve
your personal problem in this regard, without imposing censorship on the list.
> I think many of us would prefer if you were to hook up with others
> interested in the particular scripts and - after detailed discussions -
> come up with a formal proposal to the UTC, rather than making noise on this
> We've come as far as we can on this list, which is to give you some
> background, but this is not the forum to have the technical deliberation.
> So, I think it's time for this particular discussion to wind down.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 22 2005 - 21:55:48 CST