I see simple continuation of pre-judging and speculation here.
The proper thing is to wait for a proposal to come in, look at the
evidence presented, and then, and only then, decide whether there are
functional and/or usage differences that require or suggest certain
encoding actions.
A./
On 8/26/2012 4:46 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 27 Aug 2012, at 00:21, Richard Wordingham wrote:
We do where the properties necessitate, e.g. U+0241 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
GLOTTAL STOP and U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP,
Those are not duplicate characters. There is a case-pairing glottal stop and a
non-casing glottal stop. That is a functional difference.
or the NEW TAI LUE and TAI THAM scripts.
These are not duplicate scripts. (And no, I'm not interested in debating this
with you.)
We also have the principal of the separation of scripts.
I do not think it is wise to encode some "neo-Mayan" number system because some
magazines have used them decoratively in foliation or because some school-children spend
a cultural week or two doing Mayan maths before getting back to regular decimal algebra
and geometry. That is not a sufficient usage scenario to rush forward with an encoding.
I believe that it would be prudent to avoid encoding these numbers until the
entire script has been examined properly.
Preliminary work I did in 1998 on Mayan turned up nearly 1200 characters. 44 of these
were calendrical. 20 were numeric. It would be foolish to risk a mistaken encoding of
this important script in a rush to encode 5% of the whole just because that 5% *seems* to
someone to be "safe". He doesn't know if it's safe or not.
We owe it to Mayan civilization past and present to do a proper job here.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
