From: p_j_anderson@volny.cz
Date: Tue Feb 16 2010 - 11:37:28 CST
I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of the two main letters
I propose, unless I'm missing something.
My proposal does consider future developments as part of the broad context,
so that the encoding and corresponding tools can be consistent in the
short, medium and long term.
But its major aspect for Tifinagh is to reflect current modern use.
In what way would
a) making no change
b) adding some different letters
be better than what I have proposed? I'd be interested to see what people
have to say about a unified alphabet (and less fragmented Unicode-based
toolsets). Incidentally, the current arrangement actually seems to lack
complete support for a Berber Academy repertoire despite supplying a
couple of the letters.
----- PŮVODNÍ ZPRÁVA -----
Od: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
Komu: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Předmět: Re: Tifinagh - extension for complete common Berber alphabet
Datum: 16.2.2010 - 15:54:55
> Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:
>
> > You snipped the proper context of my reply:
> >
> >>>> On the contrary, Unicode has, on occasion, deliberately
> >>>> encoded
> >>>> >>>> characters for which there was credible evidence
> >>>> of planned
> >>>> >>>> widespread future use.
> >>>
> >>> Which ones, besides EURO SIGN?
> >>
> >> There were a plethora of math characters:
>
> Fair enough. Do you feel there is an analogy between
> the math
> compatibility alphabets and the proposed new Tifinagh
> letters?
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 16 2010 - 11:41:06 CST