From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 13:31:48 EST
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> Anyway, the character "has well defined user community / usage", the
> users of the dictionary in question. It is not clear that "user"
> implies those who write the character, or only those who read it.
> Many historical characters have been accepted for Unicode which are
> not regularly written, except in copying old texts, but are still
> regularly read.
This implies that the requirement for "interchange" of the proposed
character is no longer in effect, or at least seriously weakened. I'm
not sure if that's the case.
I don't know how many scholars actually *write* Linear B and
Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform, creating a true "interchange" situation, but
I'll bet it's more than the number of dictionary users who *write*
th-with-strikethrough. The number of people who *use* the dictionary
and learn this symbol on an ad-hoc basis (either by consulting the key
or just figuring it out) may be an overestimate of the true number of
"users of the symbol."
I have to say I've seen lots worse suggestions than the ones presented
by Ernest. In particular, I don't think this proposed character
survives the "positive vs. negative" criteria in Annex G of N2652R. I
don't see why this needs to be an atomic character instead of some
combination of t, CGJ, h, and either U+0337 or U+0338.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 14:02:04 EST