From: Patrick Andries (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:45:43 CST
John Hudson a écrit :
> Michael Everson wrote:
>> Thank you. As usual, I just see a cumulation of reasons all leading
>> to the same point; I don't weight the arguments against each other. I
>> see no argument *for* encoding a combining implosive mark.
There could be one if unknown (to us as yet) implosive sindhi characters
may be discovered later. It is not sufficient to say « for simplicity's
sake » I have encoded 4 characters rather than a single mark, it is
worthwhile analysing other alternatives and show why they are unlikely
to help (only one extra implosive possible according to IPA notations)
and why there are more complicated (usually 1 is simpler than 4 but
maybe not here).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:47:53 CST