> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Michael Everson
> Structural one-to-oneness does not by default exclude a > script from being separately encoded. Compare the scripts of India. Just a comment on the argumentation, not necessarily the conclusion: I haven't studied each of the scripts of India yet, but the ones I've looked at so far are all distinct from the others in some significant way. Maybe one could propose a unified set of characters, but certainly the rendering issues would be distinct: some have half forms, while others do not; some have a single subjoined form, some have several; some have reph as a combining mark, while some do not; some allow or require CV ligatures, while others do not; etc. So, even if you could make a one-to-one association between all the characters, I would not describe these scripts as being structurally the same. Thus, I'm not sure the scripts of India are the best comparison in this case. Unless there are behaviours in Phoenician that distinguish it from Hebrew. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
