From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 14:00:27 CDT
At 14:14 -0400 2005-07-08, Patrick Andries wrote:
>You don't answer why you so often use the
>collective « we ». Not only in this thread.
I speak for myself and the co-author of the
proposal, and with reference to existing UTC and
WG2 consensus. I have also used "we" when
discussing N'Ko with you, and when I have done
so, I have done so with the approval of the
co-authors of that proposal. You, provocatively,
constantly refer to things like this as *my*
proposals, when in fact they are joint efforts.
We consider that to be disrespectful, but I've
come to expect that from you, Mr Andries. It is
part of your rhetorical repertoire. It is
>>I will stand with Stephen Emmel and his Copticist colleagues.
>And you know what he or his colleagues will do
>in the years to come or even what these
>colleagues currently think ?
It is absurd to suggest that they will wish to
undo the work which has been completed, after
many, many years, to encode Coptic separately
>You know that Stephen Emmel initially requested
>it with a bar, before he was convinced that a
>symbol should be split in some way (very odd
Professor Emmel and I worked at length in Münster
revising and revising and revising again the
proposal. It is there that the decisions
regarding the encoding model for Coptic were
made. Professor Emmel is no fool, and neither am
>You will understand I have doubts about their
>precising understanding of the character
>encoding aspect and the possibility ambiguity
>(two ways of writing the same symbol) you have
It seems to me that you have a difficulty in
understanding encoding models, and in listening
to explanations when they are given. I have not
introduced ambiguity. We have chosen an encoding
model in which the abbreviation bar is in *all*
cases explicitly encoded with a combining
>>I do not support the introduction of encoding
>>ambiguity in Coptic, and I will argue against
>>it as I have here.
>And this is why you favour allowing people to
>refer to the same abbreviation/symbol in two
>different ways (bar and no bar).
>So much for your noble goal.
Your attack here is imprecise., and your sarcasm
inappropriate. I do not "allow" people to "refer"
to abbreviations at all. What we have done is to
apply an encoding model simply and consistently.
We have encoded SYMBOL SHIMA SIMA as a text
element, and we expect that people will always
use it in conjunction with COMBINING OVERLINE.
This isn't difficult.
>I think this will come to revisit us again as
>new users are confronted to this encoding and
>understand what is now requested of them.
The text in the Unicode Standard will explain
this point, as, apparently, it requires
>Let's see. I thought we were reaching a
>consensus, but again since you answered this is
>turning into a shouting match. I'm simply not
That's your usual rhetorical response when clear
answers are given to questions and you don't like
them. All I have done is answer the questions.
You've started the attacks with your assumption
that what I say is untrustworthy.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 14:02:54 CDT