Re: Demystifying the Politburo (was: Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!))

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 04:35:16 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Back to Coptic (was: Demystifying the Politburo)"

    At 20:59 -0500 2005-07-07, wrote:

    >I asked questions on Coptic (and I am no newcomer to the field): no

    These responses were sent yesterday. I am a busy person.

    >I thought I was polite and sufficiently the humble newcomer
    >congratulating the author of the proposal who only meekly wished to
    >be enlightened and after an initial strange answer by the said
    >proposer was rather puzzled. No answers after several reminders,
    >what am I to believe but that my questions are embarrassing because
    >they reveal a two small mistakes in the Coptic proposal?

    There are no mistakes. The proposal was supported by the
    International Society for Coptic Studies.

    >Again, I don't want to start a controversy but get precise answers to
    >my precise questions (CS ligature, why? KHI-RO, CHI-RO double).
    >Am I to understand no small punctual mistakes may have slipped
    >in Unicode?

    These responses were sent yesterday.

    >I was then surprised that XXXX had been accepted, since I see no use
    >for this, that any script does require resources to support it, that
    >a perfectly viable solution already exists. I then learned it was a
    >taboo and that it had been the subject of very heated debates (and
    >Mr. Whistler speaks of proposal not reaching any consensus having no
    >chance of progressing!). I then got a series of answers of very
    >dubious analogies (Vai and Cree similar to Hebrew and Phoenican!
    >Arabic and Latin similar to Hebrew and Phoenician! and this from
    >experts I am told I must revere as a newcomer...)

    You *are* a newcomer, and you don't understand how the
    standardization process works, and you are nevertheless shooting from
    the hip, despite claiming that you are humble and meek and
    unimpressed by us.

    My comment was that yes, until Vai is encoded, I made a draft
    implementation using Cree codepoints because of the character
    properties. The same can be said about Phoenician. I did not say that
    Vai was the same as Cree, and I did not say that I believed that it
    was correct to map Phoenician glyphs to Hebrew codepoints. My
    response was not "dubious". It was an answer to the point made.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 04:39:42 CDT