> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of D. Starner
> Shouldn't the encoding be geared towards those who use it the most? Certainly how heavily / regularly it is used by different groups of users is a consideration, but not necessarily the only one. How would you compare (hypothetically) 50 that use it daily versus 5,000,000 that use it a few times a year? If the problem were all but impossible to fix for the 50, and not much of an issue for the 5M, you'd obviously go with the needs of the 50; but that decision is made based on more than just populations and frequency of usage. And if you're a product vendor, you might be concerned more about how many product-support calls either option is likely to generate than sheer number of users. > So far, all the people who actually use this script on a day to day basis > who have actually spoken up have been in favor of unification. (I may > be mistaken; it's been a long thread.) The people who have spoken up and who might use it on a day-to-day basis are paleographers, some of whom are Semiticists and some of whom are not. The Semitic paleographers have spoken in favour of unification, while all others (I think) have spoken against unification. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
