From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
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.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 17 2009 - 15:18:38 CDT