Michael Everson wrote:
> I would object very strongly to the unification of Greek,
Etruscan, and Gothic.
Mark Davis wrote:
>One of the key points is whether native speakers of the three scripts
would
>recognize the standard character shapes as being the roughly the
same. (Since we
>are talking about dead scripts, it would be the academic users of the
scripts.) It
>sounds from the descriptions that this would not be the case--that at
least some
>letters would not be recognized as being the same.
Having once had the trouble to implement a Unicode true type font for our
multilingual type-setting system - TUSTEP - which is used by experts to
print e.g. mixtures of Greek and Coptic or Cyrillic and Old-Slavonic
passages I can only strongly second those statements. It is Unicode's
stated aim that
"Plain text must contain enough information to permit the text to be
rendered "legibly, and nothing more." (Unicode Standard, Vers. 2.0,
p._2.7)
That implies in my eyes that I should be able to reach a legible (not
*fancy*, of course) result without font switching and without taking
recurse to higher level protocols. Or, to use Mark Davis' words: native
speakers or experts in the case of dead languages should consider the
result as being a correct and readable representation of the text.
This is already not the case with the unified Greek and Coptic letters
(U+0370-03F5). Without higher level protocol and font switching you are
unable to print out a text which contains passages in both Greek and
Coptic, a usual requirement in academic circles. While obviously related to
each other, experts view these two as distinct scripts, not font variants.
(A similar, though admittedly more borderline case are Old Church Slavonic
and Cyrillic, where I would, too, argue for two distinct code ranges.)
Things will become worse when Etruscan and Gothic are mixed up
similarly, possibly other dead languages likewise. The criterion cannot be
if two scripts are closely related to each other --- where do you draw the
line? ---, but if experts in the field would consider it acceptable (not
necessarily beautiful!) to find their sources rendered in the other script
and vice versa. If a majority or even a sizable minority would not, then
give that script a distinct code range.
Marc
begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(@`1`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`' $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````10``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'5N:6-O9&5 =6YI8V]D92YO<F<`4TU4
M4 !U;FEC;V1E0'5N:6-O9&4N;W)G`````!X``C !````!0```%--5% `````
M'@`#, $````4````=6YI8V]D94!U;FEC;V1E+F]R9P`#`!4,`0````,`_@\&
M````'@`!, $````6````)W5N:6-O9&5 =6YI8V]D92YO<F<G`````@$+, $`
M```9````4TU44#I53DE#3T1%0%5.24-/1$4N3U)'``````,``#D`````"P!
M.@$````"`?8/`0````0````````"5C,!!( !`"\```!!5SH@1W)E96LO171R
M=7-C86XO1V]T:&EC(%5N:69I8V%T:6]N(%!R;W!O<V%L`.H0`06 `P`.````
MS0<+`!0`$@`1`#H`! !4`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'"P`4`!$`+@`8``0`3@$!"8 !
M`"$```!"03=!.4$T1C=$-C%$,3$Q.$1#-3 P.#!#-C R,T0R1@`N!P$#D 8`
M> @``!0````+`",``0````,`)@``````"P`I```````#`"X```````,`-@``
M````0 `Y`/#T)C_8];P!'@!P``$````O````05<Z($=R965K+T5T<G5S8V%N
M+T=O=&AI8R!5;FEF:6-A=&EO;B!0<F]P;W-A; ```@%Q``$````6`````;SU
MV#\:3YIZNV%]$=&-Q0" Q@(]+P``'@`># $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,
M`0```"(```!M87)C+FMU97-T97) >F1V+G5N:2UT=65B:6YG96XN9&4````#
M``80$Z/NS ,`!Q!-!P``'@`($ $```!E````34E#2$%%3$5615)33TY74D]4
M13I)5T]53$1/0DI%0U1615)94U123TY'3%E43U1(155.249)0T%424].3T9'
M4D5%2RQ%5%)54T-!3BQ!3D1'3U1(24--05)+1$%625-74D]410`````"`0D0
M`0```,4&``#!!@``A0L``$Q:1G7"H$^]_P`*`0\"%0*D`^0%ZP*#`% 3`U0"
M`&-H"L!S973N,@8`!L,"@S(#Q@<3`H-&,P/%`@!P<G$2(G,H=&5M`H,T#WIH
M9:)L`R!$;&<"@S43#2Y]"H (SPG9.QD_,C4>-0* "H$-L0M@;F<Q## S`% +
M`VQI,S9?#? +51=B# $4P&\50&,9!4!-:1&Q%J @17:E!)!S`B @=QY2.@J%
M&#X@21^P"&!L9""8;V)J'H(?47D@%3#+`V <0&PAT'1O(G 6D!0@=0,`9A[0
M871I(1^1;V8@1PG1:RS4(" *A44B`'4$\ !P5R0P`' A$$<>8&@>T"Z_"H\=
MIR1 )\$F)2?#30K <FL6T&%V! `?O"?#/IQ/;B+0([$BLFME(=#T<&\+@'0$
M("E2%I BL1T%P&XC41]0(>!P96'_*V 1X"KF(K )T2'@!0,I8:\@XBGK&4 %
MH&<#`'HN$N\M$0&0)8 +$2 1L@#0%4!=!<!S$< M0 0@800@8AIE"X!G(J,#
M8'5G: LB4C#B80> +B H4^4+@&,BT'=E*>L*P"X1?0= :S,"`: (8 5 #;!A
M]R$0+I4D,&D%0"#4,N BH_\`T#= %5 >T"+@$? MF"Z5="XI(*!T*>L?@"+P
M9/\$( -2(J,-L 3T(W$$("*P[R-0(J$I4B#C;AY@.(8C0-D1\"TM/<,]X6PM
M4!4P_R'@`W U+$!0`D M@CYK,#=_(1 RNS1#)B\+D1+R# %C^P! * A(*3$S
M$0(@-.$1P/\A$"WS,X$"8"X1(I '< M0YQ50"?! `2!5`P`%H VP]TB1"E B
M<'DM0#Q0`B%+(?,%P AA(&T@\"-@'0`<0'9U!T!*TRT1\2-@,Q%S`14C("T@
M5%535/Q%4$X!+$ >T2P".9$X<?DAT&5X+4 `(#VA(I 4P#,KP4_ +F<T@#E0
M>'3_"' 'D2.V)6,(4#U1.7 %L;Q#>040%K Y825R3R$`]"U3"V!V`B Y8440
M!!#\86<'D2"P)2%'P2)1(??O$? %H"6!(K!O$? Q`A5!WTFQ.L Z\2P"2A4G
M!"!7<Q]#H0=P/;-$Y@&1(")0_PMB(G!/T 5 3 ! @5;!`9#O6R$)\#.2+ !N
M2X$`P"-C_U!2!) Y4#WR+A%;8B*!0N.?)8 $D$.16I1 4&=I`F!^>254/L$E
MX#,1!& 90"ZV(C202A93,24D,%8?81$T@#(N,"0P<"Y?V6-P-RE$Y2@75#W2
M25+7") K\0.@;4^Q>0>1/</_(+ R0#A&`:!(]!E `-!/`)=)\& D(M H/L(J
M9@!P^&-Y*B0P([$%H AP$?#_.N!1@4P1'[ X`&<Q2V))P?T#X701L#:#)8%K
M1@&0-G/_,#%J<B)R)> SL"R10% ?4)L#(!Y";QBQ6 %/<B0P-R*!.9$HR2<@
MP0L@<SK_++\%L4_66R(_12.B-R,<(O],D%4B9R56P0"0!($S-&KD_S*W2? %
MH3 Q0 $E@6A!,5#_2.(90!3 !Y!)L2-77D9$UO\H&&4P*5$I40= >*(AT#["
M?W/7:T(BJ$.14?]!QF'@*Q$<<#<P+1QP1C4I?32 5VM5;I]OHB5C:\UY_PA@
M)6 V$2+P9\90A#;B2?#_6U-.Q%OU!"!4UULA!N!]X1]^WB51.8%,DAE <75I
MKQE 2:-;(3D'8XIP8T!0?5@!5R7@2/$A,"E "&!S_R)1&4 +8%EB(H%H4R7!
M!)#_)#!/UBE !]$BL6XR(- RHGYD! !-41Z1-W<^PDLS=K\*P <P5^,=74:2
M-)!!(>#_!W #$ K <#%G,5RQ-T!>`?]982)187*(,0L@!)!,47/U]S8"5 %2
M@&@(<$[Q5$=24[]3120P+$$V$2"U<#)O)5'^<DR 2Q)V88_QD%=*0S'0_QQ
MC %D)D6O1KE[XAQ *6'_4V$RT06@!X!Q<GV2%I #H)\DUB5IA)-1,4.1=7"4
M!O]@<BN@!!!@4HXT=(X=`"M@_P/Q-'%E,#]1!1 R`2-R)2'_/L4&D(_3+I8V
M`HO@5S&-'V^.)4X`/["9960BD(1B9&\QT(]CI:$JP#^JTB0P8O\V\:?1<RU^
M@2$!(-1U]S@!_P#0-. %,&?#:4,JP#3@5/%W4U$AT#+@83;P!I @\"'_.N B
M@2,@5N,R\#(A"&&Q,?]?*'.EI&0$]25R*4 TX1]2WF%8$2/ 2? `P&H%L#@`
MWZ1!<P$?4(L!E %Z9\,Y4/\^P+=3/F>4@J#A8$ M`3W#_[56FX^<D32 9#Q:
MDUJ3*-'^8R@7>N^\W1R_G=HGP<'-%QY&1.4880#%0 ````,`$! ``````P`1
M$ ````! ``<P(%9LUM/UO % ``@P(%9LUM/UO $>`#T``0````4```!!5SH@
.``````,`#33]-P``C<;U
`
end
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT