Re: Corrections to Glagolitic

From: John Hudson (
Date: Sat May 14 2005 - 14:20:31 CDT

  • Next message: Jon Hanna: "RE: what is Latn?"

    Curtis Clark wrote:

    > Two scripts with which I have some knowledge of the mystical aspects are
    > Runic and Ogham. In both cases, mystical aspects were not explicitly
    > included, meaning that they were neither deprecated nor enshrined, but
    > rather ignored, except to the extent that they paralleled need for
    > encoding historical use. In the case of Runic, there are glyph variants
    > that can supposedly change the mystical meaning of the text (although
    > this may be a modern invention); they were not encoded. In the case of
    > Ogham, the blank ogham was encoded (U+00A0), but not with that meaning. :-)

    So mysticism is a mark-up issue, not an encoding issue. That sounds fine to me.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    Currently reading:
    Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was
    A century of philosophy, by Hans Georg Gadamer

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 14 2005 - 14:21:15 CDT