From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 00:28:01 CDT
From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
> The argumentation is *essentialist* in nature: uppercase [ß] *is*
> a letter, not a ligature, *therefore* it *must* be encoded as a
> character.
I've been thinking this for the past several days: there isn't an independent basis to say it is or isn't a character; it is if we agree to say it is. Some have already crossed that mental bridge and have it so far behind them they don't even question a claim of characterhood; others have not cross that bridge, indeed are so far away they don't even see it.
> I would like them to at least consider the parallel with folks
> who have been arguing for years, for example, that "ksa" in
> Devanagari *is* a letter, and therefore must be encoded as a
> character.
There is a key difference that doesn't make Devanagari "ksa" a good parallel: there isn't a small "ksa" that stands in an obvious paired relationship and that is already encoded.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 08 2007 - 00:29:50 CDT