From: Patrick Andries (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:54:01 CST
Patrick Andries a écrit :
> 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).
> P. A.
Sorry, second time I attribute today a quote to the wrong author. I was
answering Michael, not John.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:54:47 CST