From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 17 2009 - 15:16:09 CDT
On 8/17/2009 3:56 AM, verdy_p wrote:
> "Asmus Freytag" wrote:
>> For Cyrillic, many character sets exist (and have existed for a long
>> time, even prior to Unicode) that contain _both_ the Latin alphabet and
>> the Cyrillic alphabet. The shape "a" occurs in both alphabets, and has
>> been encoded using two character codes. On the other hand the shape "z"
>> is thought to occur only in one alphabet (the Latin) and is coded only
>> once. If some not-so-well-known language has been written in Cyrillic,
>> but using the "z" shape, all digitally encoded documents created would
>> have to have used the "z" shape with the character code in the Latin
>> alphabet section of those character sets.
> A more convincing strong disunification
Your use of "strong disunification" in this message does *not* match the
way that expression is used in the Principles & Procedures document.
Therefore, you are simply *adding* to the confusion by applying this
term to yet another concept. As the original message asked for
clarification of the use of this term in the P&P document, I'll just
point that out. There's little need to then address your discussion,
which appears to about something altogether different. BTW, the P&P
document is written from the perspective of helping to evaluate
character encoding proposals. It does not attempt to retrospectively
apply to all instances of unification decisions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 17 2009 - 15:18:38 CDT