Re: Mayan numerals

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:00:07 +0100

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:46:12 +0100
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
> Those are not duplicate characters. There is a case-pairing glottal stop and a non-casing glottal stop.

> That is a functional difference.

As I said, the character is duplicated so one can select the version
with the right properties.

> > 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.)

Those who are interested in the truth of the matter could do a lot
worse than looking at "Evidence Regarding the Decomposition of the VA
Mark in Tai Lue Script"
and noting the Chinese reponse to the Tai Tham encoding proposal at .

This mess could be seen as an argument again premature encoding.
Encoding many of the characters twice was judged the lesser evil, but
it does depend on the Tai Lue writing systems not being mixed.

We may be reaching a position where it would make sense for, say, a
10-year delay between a character being assigned and any of its
functional properties being made immutable. But then, I have little
sympathy for a process that insists that character strings be in NFC
because it can't comply with the Unicode conformance requirements.

Received on Sun Aug 26 2012 - 22:04:57 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Aug 26 2012 - 22:04:58 CDT