On 28/12/2003 20:47, D. Starner wrote:
...
Intra-script, a difference in appearance has call for seperate codings.
Inter-script, if the appearance is dissimilar enough to be a bar to
reading, and there's a disjoint population of users (so that one is
not a handwriting or cipher variant of
At 06:55 -0800 2003-12-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
Yes, this is true at least of Azerbaijani, which mapped Cyrillic
glyphs to Latin ones one-to-one. But with Serbo-Croat we are talking
of two separate communities which prefer to use separate scripts for
what is essentially the same language; and
As to harm, where's the harm in encoding Japanese kanzi separately, or
Latin uncial, or a complete set of small capitals as a third case?
Where's the harm in encoding Latin Renaissance scripts separately?
Spell checking, for one. Should you use T-cedilla or T-comma for Romanian?
What if your
-Message d'origine -
De: "D. Starner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Indeed, by
the same argument, we could encode a lot of scripts together. ISCII did
it for Indic scripts. I'm sure we could do some serious merging among
syllabic scripts - 12A8(#4776;) is the same as
13A7(#5031;)
I
4 matches
Mail list logo
