At 17:34 -0700 2004-07-09, Mark Davis wrote:
What I think we should be examining is which of the items that are not interfiled (to use your phrasing) should be, if any. I don't think everything should be. In particular, I think John's list is the list we should be focusing on.
I think most of what is in John [Cowan]'s list are letters which are quite properly not interfiled with "base" letters. The African hook letters (which I have mentioned many times, and which you have ignored in favour of the Danish letters you are more familiar with) are there.
> John's list?
That's was in my original mail, that you were commenting on when you changed the subject line, but which you didn't apparently didn't bother to actually read.
Sweet of you to say.
> My point is made here. It is really only ininitial position where this is likely to be noticed.
This is incorrect. It will make a difference in other positions. Sorting "S�ren" after "Sozar" in a long list, if someone isn't expecting it, will cause problems. They look for it after "Soret", don't see it on the page, and assume it isn't there; fooled by the fact that it is on a completely different page.
No way! Do you expect your default tailorable template to suddenly and magically relieve the user of the problems of long lists and multi-page typesetting? Sheesh. No matter how much you jiggle either the template or a tailoring for people who only know the letters A-Z, there will be edge cases which will fail this kind of test.
Remember that the collation sequence is also used for language-sensitive matching as well as sorting.
I remember.
> What I want is the status quo, however.Leave the template and its principles alone.
Stability is important, and we want to consider that very carefully before making any change. However, I believe that the current way we handle a few characters in UCA is distinctly suboptimal, and worth considering.
John [Cowan]'s list is not "a few characters". -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
