At 00:47 +0000 2004-11-09, Peter Kirk wrote:
The aim of Unicode standardisation is surely to define a single and unambiguous representation of text.
Not at all, not in the least but. It's to provide encoding for the world's writing systems. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It allows the chaos of the world's writing systems to flourish quite safely.
Actually, Peter is on to something, although he overstates it.
The aim is indeed to avoid multiple equivalent representations--where possible. If that was not an aim, there would be no Han Unification, and Fraktur would be its own script.
In some cases multiple representations of text were introduced deliberately; in the majority of cases they reflect limitations of technology, such as the need for backwards compatibility. In some cases they are artifacts of the political nature of the standardization process. And in some other cases, there's a recognition that there is no single and unambiguous representation possible.
The key to remember, and it's one of the defining characteristics of the work on Unicode, that there is no general principle that can adjudicate all cases. What may appear clear-cut and black & white in one area, is gray-on-gray, shadows and fog in another.
That's why we need a series of interlocking committees with multiple circles of experts to weigh the evidence and that's why we can have these fun arguments.
And that leads precisely to the freedom and non-prescriptive aspects of the standard that Michael values.
A./
