From: Joó Ádám (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Apr 12 2009 - 10:56:40 CDT
>> Bakonyi's proposal's fault is very simple to explain.
>> It only encodes a small subset of historic signs which he feels to be
>> "the true script".
And he also, explicitly propose to encode SOUND VALUES, to which
everybody can apply his/her own glyphs – if this not, what contradicts
> That doesn't go against any Unicode / UCS principles; it simply reflects a disagreement within the expert community as to what is the inventory that needs to be encoded.
Bakonyi is the only one in the community who wants to exclude the set
of modern (from the early 20th century on) set.
> Suppose two parties disagree on the inventory, A saying that a text element x needs to be encoded, while B saying it should not. If B's claim is that x can be represented by some sequence of characters there is consensus to encode, then that's something that needs to be resolved. But if B's claim is that x doesn't merit representation while A has a clear use requirement, then the committees may disregard B's objections.
Latter case is in effect.
> I assume you mean that they *could* be represented as sequences of characters which there is consensus to encode. If so, then it does sound like that would contradict one of the encoding principles.
They can be represented as sequences of characters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 12 2009 - 10:59:37 CDT