From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 15 2005 - 14:24:00 CDT
At 21:45 +0400 2005-05-15, Alexander Savenkov wrote:
>Please however bear in mind that the accuracy of the data may not be
>the greatest concern of some other people out there.
Not those of us who do the work of encoding.
>Sometimes their only concern is to shout about their professionalism
>and world-famous reputation (which is documented by the many errors
>in the Unicode
>Standard and the many arrogant e-mail messages by the way).
I am not sure at whom this particular ad-hominem attack is aimed, but
it does not seem appropriate. I, for instance, have many times been
called "arrogant" by people who ignore the fact that I have always
been quite happy to admit when I was wrong.
I am confident that each of the letters encoded in the Glagolitic
block has been reviewed by specialists in Glagolitic and deserves to
have been encoded.
>Also, an attempt to question someone's authority is ok and even
>appreciated since the ones Michael Everson calls "professional
>Slavic linguistics" and "many specialists" desperately need that.
If you are suggesting that the Glagolitic block was not reviewed by
real linguists who really know about Slavic languages and writing
systems, you are mistaken. (I apologize for the spelling error.
Clearly I meant "linguists" and not "linguistics".)
>Don't let them make a mess out of the Glagolitic block.
Whom are you attacking here?
The standardization process is open and well-defined, and Glagolitic
passed through it as all scripts do. It is not "a mess". If there are
characters missing for which a proper case can be made, they can be
added. The character names cannot be changed, and the character
positions cannot be changed. Those are the rules of standardization.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 15 2005 - 14:25:09 CDT