From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 22:42:27 EST
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>
>
>>You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set of
>>separate
>>scripts where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.
>>
>>
>
>I think Philippe is running off the rails here.
>
>Tifinagh is a script. It comes in a number of local varieties,
>adapted to different languages and with local variations in
>glyph preferences. It will be encoded as a *single* script in
>Unicode, since encoding all the local orthographic varieties
>as distinct scripts would really not be a service to anyone
>who wants this script encoded for enabling IT processing of
>Berber textual data.
>
Compare tengwar; much the same situation. I realize tengwar isn't yet
encoded, but I think there's no question of how it should be encoded, if
it is.
>>when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract
>>character set covered by all scripts in the Tifinagh family?
>>
>>
>
>You could say the same about any script whatsoever, as I
>suspect that *every* script in Unicode has been transliterated
>into the Latin script at one point or another. Why not just
>map them *all* to Latin and save the messy task of having to
>deal with data represented in its own script? (<== That was
>a rhetorical question, in case it wasn't obvious to all readers.)
>
>
All of Unicode is just a cypher to strings of [0123456789ABCDEF],
really. Or to strings from [01], come to that.
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 23:14:46 EST