RE: Engmagate?

All this just endorses "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language"

Best regards,
Jonathan (Jony) Rosenne

-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of Denis Jacquerye
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 9:33 AM
To: Michael Everson
Cc: Leo Broukhis; Don Osborn; unicode Unicode Discussion; Eng in the UCS
Subject: Re: Engmagate?

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com> wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis <leob_at_mailcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Hasn't http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/#Variant_Shapes explained it once and for all?
>
> No, because users of N-shaped capital Eng consider n-shaped capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant. And because n-shaped capital Eng consider N-shaped capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant.
>
> Disunification is the best solution.
>
> I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of eng-using countries come together with a proposal.

What if not every user of one form considers it wrong to use the other form?

What if there’s evidence of use of both forms in those languages?

What if the users who consider the other shape wrong are unaware of the history or variation of their own orthographies?

--
Denis Moyogo Jacquerye
African Network for Localisation http://www.africanlocalisation.net/
Nkótá ya Kongó míbalé --- http://info-langues-congo.1sd.org/
DejaVu fonts --- http://www.dejavu-fonts.org/