Michael Everson scripsit: > Well, when I talk about the historical relationships between the > scripts and their glyphs and the family tree and encoding nodes of it > with relation to other encoded and not-yet-encoded scripts, those > *whys* have been ignored, which is why I said to you, privately, what > I said to you.
Nobody denies the historical facts of the abjad tree. What is being questioned (by me, anyhow) is why those facts compel a difference of encoding. > I have already made these replies any number of times. In my abundant > spare time (after finalizing the Irish ballot comments due on > 2004-05-04, working on N'Ko, producing documents to encode currency > signs, Coptic additions, Samaritan, etc., I shall try to revise > N2311. Would that make you happier? It would be better than not doing it, yes. But better still would be to stick to things outside this vexing range which are higher priority. -- In politics, obedience and support John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> are the same thing. --Hannah Arendt http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
