Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 10:58:04 CDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hallissy" <Bob_Hallissy@sil.org>
> On 2005-07-03 10:52:44 PM asadek wrote:
> > But how would 066E + 065A appear and behave typographically differently
> > 0756? This is after all a character encoding not a pronunciation one.
> Ideally, 0756 can accept a vowel combining mark, whereas 066E+065A should
Okay, this is fair enough. Thanks.
> BTW, to take up a previous question of yours:
> > Why encode, version of Unicode after version of Unicode, new
> > Arabic characters which could be coded as a base and a combining
> > mark (why no THREE DOTS ABOVE/TWO DOTS ABOVE)?
> SIL thought so too. In fact we made a detailed proposal on just this
> approach not very long ago. Part of the rationale for our proposal was
> exactly your concern: that it will take a long time for the Arabic
> character repertoire to finally be complete. In our opinion it would be
> much better to switch to a dynamic composition model including the various
> dot patterns, etc., than to have a continuous trickle of new characters
> being added to the standard year after year.
> However, in the end, the proposal was rejected.
> My reason for bringing this up is to let you know that there is no
> possibility of further progress in this direction. The technical merits,
> costs, and risks of the approach have been fairly presented and evaluated,
> and the decision made.
Is this decision process transparent and documented? If so, where can we read about the rationale for this rejection? What are those costs and risks? How many of these risks are the results of rules (stability pact for instance) Unicode sets itself? (Paints itself in a corner or more gently makes things more complex for minority user communities)
-- St Elias Coptic Community
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 04 2005 - 10:58:59 CDT