From: Leo Broukhis (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 16:27:51 CST
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, David Starner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Leo Broukhis <email@example.com> wrote:
>> What if we're talking about a language with a nascent writing system
>> (less than 10 y.o.) for which there are only 3 abecedaries so far?
> We don't encode stuff that's only been used in 3 books.
Even if their total circulation is in the millions? All right, why
encode stuff that's only been used by 3 cell phone providers, then?
>> It's a precomposed glyph for the word "dog" then. Sorry, not eligible
>> for encoding.
> So is resumé a precomposed glyph for resume?
> Is chat a French precomposed glyph for cat?
No (silly questions), there is nothing *pre*composed in them.
> Is w just a precomposed glyph for vv?
I cannot think of an English minimal pair now (unfortunately, "sawy"
is not a word), but even if it is, the grandfahering clause applies.
> a picture of a dog is a precomposed glyph for the word dog is absurd.
Naturally, not in general (I wouldn't claim that any photo or any
drawing of a dog is a precomposed glyph), but when an attempt is made
to use a stylized picture in plain text but no evidence is given for
any semantic difference from the corresponding word spelled out, what
else is it if not a precomposed glyph for that word?
The universal intelligibility as a semantic difference argument would
not help, because then the "well-defined set" argument breaks down.
Encode blisssymbolics and use emoji as glyph variants then.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 16:30:51 CST