On 8/22/2012 11:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:05, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>> I understand that from a professional Mayanist perspective, having glyphs for just the numbers without even the dates or any of the rest isn't attractive. And I also understand that in real petroglyphs, 1 and 2 (for instance) usually look more like ∪•∪ and •∪• than like the simplified • and •• that I'd suggest for the basic glyphs. But I can say confidently that there are audiences who would use these glyphs, certainly more than a lot of what's in Unicode.
>
This is beginning to look like there might be a case for a set of
characters for Mayan digits in modern use, and to just separate them
from the script.
Also in light of what we learned about their use in education. That's
not "scholarly" use, which is the usual bench mark for how to encode
ancient scripts.
A./
Received on Wed Aug 22 2012 - 14:02:22 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 22 2012 - 14:02:22 CDT