From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 04 2005 - 11:30:19 CST
On 04/03/2005 16:27, Doug Ewell wrote:
>I think what some people have been trying to say is that this would be
>true *whether or not* a separate unambiguous-Greek block were added.
>Existing Greek (and Coptic) data will still be encoded in the existing
>block, existing keyboards will continue to generate code points from the
>existing block, and that data will continue to be ambiguous. Not much
>can be done about that.
Oh, I agree. And so there is not much point in doing disunifications
unless users are actually committed to changing to the new code points.
That is why a good decision was made not to introduce a separate
unambiguous Greek block. And it is why whenever a new script is proposed
it needs the clear support of those who are intended to use it, as was
true with Coptic. For if the users want to continue to treat the script
as a set of glyph variants of an already encoded script, the
disunification simply adds to the ambiguity and messiness of the
standard, rather than reducing it.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 02/03/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 04 2005 - 11:30:51 CST