Re: Mayan numerals

I see simple continuation of pre-judging and speculation here.

The proper thing is to wait for a proposal to come in, look at the
evidence presented, and then, and only then, decide whether there are
functional and/or usage differences that require or suggest certain
encoding actions.

A./

On 8/26/2012 4:46 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2012, at 00:21, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
>> We do where the properties necessitate, e.g. U+0241 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP and U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP,
> Those are not duplicate characters. There is a case-pairing glottal stop and a non-casing glottal stop. That is a functional difference.
>
>> or the NEW TAI LUE and TAI THAM scripts.
> These are not duplicate scripts. (And no, I'm not interested in debating this with you.)
>
>> We also have the principal of the separation of scripts.
> I do not think it is wise to encode some "neo-Mayan" number system because some magazines have used them decoratively in foliation or because some school-children spend a cultural week or two doing Mayan maths before getting back to regular decimal algebra and geometry. That is not a sufficient usage scenario to rush forward with an encoding.
>
> I believe that it would be prudent to avoid encoding these numbers until the entire script has been examined properly.
>
> Preliminary work I did in 1998 on Mayan turned up nearly 1200 characters. 44 of these were calendrical. 20 were numeric. It would be foolish to risk a mistaken encoding of this important script in a rush to encode 5% of the whole just because that 5% *seems* to someone to be "safe". He doesn't know if it's safe or not.
>
> We owe it to Mayan civilization past and present to do a proper job here.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Aug 26 2012 - 19:13:12 CDT