On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM Martin J. Dürst <duerst_at_it.aoyama.ac.jp>
wrote:
> The qualification 'minor' is less important for an alphabet. In general,
> the more established and well-known an alphabet is, the wider the
> variations of glyph shapes that may be tolerated.
>
My problem with that is that a new script is likely to have wider variation
in properties. It invites people to tinker, with the possibility that any
new changes have a chance to become popular. And variants that show up in
Latin script, like http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20130/20130-h/20130-h.htm ,
don't tend to get encoded unless they have serious support.
When the discussion of the Hopi-English dictionary comes up, I'm reminded
that the Siouian alphabet for Latin,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BAE-Siouan_Alphabet.png , was
rejected for encoding, at least on this list, because it was only used in
one set of publications that were distributed to every major library in the
US, unlike the Hopi dictionary that was stuck in an archive somewhere.
Received on Mon Mar 27 2017 - 19:04:39 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 27 2017 - 19:04:39 CDT
