From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:44:30 CST
At 17:21 +0100 2005-11-18, Andreas Prilop wrote:
>The example was about Schiller in Fraktur or Roman ("Antiqua").
>There is *no* difference in orthography between Fraktur and Antiqua
>(= normal Latin) in German.
Long s.
>Why are normal Latin and Fraktur separate (sub-)scripts in ISO 15924
>when the argument is different orthographies?
That *isn't* the argument. Please read the standard. The argument is
that for bibliographical purposes the distinction between
Roman/Fraktur/Gaelic is significant enough to wish to tag.
>There is no orthographic difference between Latf and Latn in German.
Long s.
>What are the orthographic differences between Hans and Hant?
A well-defined set of things that need to be distinguished in a wide
variety of well-known contexts.
>I suspect that many Arabs have difficulties reading Persian or Urdu
>Nastaliq.
Yes, but if books in Arabic are not printed in Nastaliq, then nothing
needs to be tagged.
>I consider the difference between Naskh and Nastaliq greater than
>between Latin and Latin (Fraktur) and perhaps comparable to Hans vs.
>Hant.
In theory, or in the realm of practical applications, which is what
ISO 15924 is for?
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:58:06 CST