On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:At 10:36 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain text usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and didn't receive an answer: should Unicode encode a script whose ONLY demonstrated usage is in alphabet charts? I think the answer is not, because essentially these charts are graphics of glyphs, not text.Perhaps if you would look at the proposal you would see the demonstrated use of the script given in the figures there.
Stop poking fun at me and treating me as an imbecile. Of course you know that I know that this script was actually used.
You are the one who said that its *only* demonstrated usage is in alphabet charts.
The question is, is it a separate script, or is it a set of variant glyphs for what should be a unified 22 character Semitic script (although currently known as Hebrew)?
It's a separate script. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
