> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of D. Starner
> > > * A comparable discussion could appear involving Fraktur and Latin > > characters > > > and Chao and Chang. > > > > I agree, but only somewhat... > That was the point of Chao vs. Chang... BTW, it occurred to me that your responses have focused on smaller details of one usage scenario, and not the most relevant part of my earlier message, viz. <quote> So, saying that, while people have asked for plain-text distinction of their text, they can accomplish what they need using markup, and it's not unreasonable to ask them to do so... That seems to me to be a greater level of inconvenience for the anti-unification paleographers as the pro-unification paleographers would face with distinct encodings (needing to fold character distinctions), and probably for implementers wanting to support both as well as for general users. </quote> I followed you down the hole of dissecting that particular usage scenario, so I'm equally to blame here. I think it would be more productive to come back up a level: OK, you think the scenario I provided wasn't reasonable, and may still think so in spite of my feedback on your reasons. Do you think there are other reasonable scenarios that support the same conclusion? the opposite conclusion? Are reasonable and representative scenarios likely to support or refute my comment that needing markup will be a greater inconvenience for the non-unification proponents than would be character folding for the pro-unification proponents? That's the important question. Peter
