On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:The reason I pointed out that Semitic scholars had reached their view long prior to Unicode was to point out that they were not following the character/glyph model of the Unicode standard.
I don't claim that they are following the Unicode model. But their insight into character identity remains valid.
No. If you need to decide what qualifies as a character for the purposes of encoding in the Unicode Standard you must base your decision on the terms of reference for the Unicode Standard,
in other words that which the character glyph model attempts to capture.
This reiterates something that we've seen repeatedly in this discussion. Common terms like 'character' and 'script' can be used with somewhat different meanings in different domains. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as one can carefully apply only the definitions proper to the domain at hand.
To me, it seems that you continue to confuse these, and as long as you do, this discussion cannot bring any interesting results.
A./
