From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 18:16:45 CDT
On May 20, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> Not really. We have a well-defined repertoire and all of the
> characters have catalogue numbers. We don't know what they *mean*
> but it is certainly unlikely that any one of them is a glyph
> variant of any other one of them.
The problem is that we don't know how it relates to the overall size
of the script. (Or so ran the rationale against encoding.) It would
be like encoding A through F and not knowing how many additional
letters to make room for.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 18:17:28 CDT