From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 07:57:00 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 07:34 -0700 2004-05-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> Is there any really good reason not to mix two scripts, which are
>> according to many people actually variants of one script but which
>> are (if your proposal is accepted) seperately encoded for the
>> convenience of some scholars?
>
>
> Yes. The default template is for default behaviour. Most people in the
> world use a tiny subset of characters available, and don't care much
> about what happens in scripts which are not their own. This sort of
> battle was fought over Runic: Runologists wanted the Runes to be
> sorted in Latin alphabetical order, but this didn't make sense to the
> other clients of the script. The Latin ordering is considered to be a
> special tailoring.
>
>> This sounds to me like the kind of rule which is made to be broken.
>> If all the 22 CSWA scripts are collated together by default, this
>> would significantly reduce the objections to encoding them as
>> separate scripts.
>
>
> I would have just as many objections to doing that as I would with
> unifying it with Hebrew. Users don't expect this kind of interfiling
> when looking things up in ordered lists. Interfiling of scripts
> impedes legibility.
OTOH applications that generate collated lists should ideally provide a
straightforward means of applying special tailoring tables.
- Chis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 11 2004 - 08:00:04 CDT