From: C J Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 10:09:08 CST
Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org> wrote:
> Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. One past mistake of Unicode, or
> decision it had to take for compatibility reasons, does not create a
> precedent.
Your assuming that not unifying some Indic scripts was a mistake or done for
compatibility reasons.
> The problem is that there seem to be no guidelines, only possible
> precedents, each of which seems to have its own particular history and
> its own problems and so should not be used as a precedent.
Indic scripts being alphabetic would seem to correlate more closely to the
scripts under discussion than ideographic scripts do. I think it was was
someone wanting Phonecian & Hebrew unification who raised CJK unification as a
precedent.
> So there are two possible approaches. One is to try to reach consensus
> among experts in the script in question. The other is to let one
> individual, who is not an expert in the particular script although he
> may be in scripts in general, decide each such question. I hope the
> latter approach will not be taken.
I don't think Michael is the only individual - anyway the *decision* will
certainly not be taken by him alone since it has to go through WG2, UTC etc.
While it is essential to get input from experts in the script(s) concerned,
input from experts in script & character encoding is just as important. It is
members of the latter group that end up making the final decision.
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT