Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?
Martin J. Dürst
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Mar 27 00:42:40 CDT 2017
On 2017/03/26 22:15, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2017, at 09:12, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> Thats a good point: any disunification requires showing examples of
>>> contrasting uses.
>> Fully agreed.
> The default position is NOT “everything is encoded unified until disunified”.
Neither it's "everything is encoded separately unless it's unified".
> The characters in question have different and undisputed origins, undisputed.
If you change that to the somewhat more neutral "the shapes in question
have different and undisputed origins", then I'm with you. I actually
have said as much (in different words) in an earlier post.
> We’ve encoded one pair; evidently this pair was deprecated and another pair was devised. The letters wynn and w are also used for the same thing. They too have different origins and are encoded separately. The letters yogh and ezh have different origins and are encoded separately. (These are not perfect analogies, but they are pertinent.)
Fine. I (and others) have also given quite a few analogies, none of them
perfect, but most if not all of them pertinent.
>> We haven't yet heard of any contrasting uses for the letter shapes we are discussing.
> Contrasting use is NOT the only criterion we apply when establishing the characterhood of characters.
Sorry, but where did I say that it's the only criterion? I don't think
it's the only criterion. On the other hand, I also don't think that
historical origin is or should be the only criterion.
Unfortunately, much of what you wrote gave me the impression that you
may think that historical origin is the only criterion, or a criterion
that trumps all others. If you don't think so, it would be good if you
could confirm this. If you think so, it would be good to know why.
> Please try to remember that. (It’s a bit shocking to have to remind people of this.
You don't have to remind me, at least. I have mentioned "usability for
average users in average contexts" and "contrasting use" as criteria,
and I have also in earlier mail acknowledged history as a (not the)
criterion, and have mentioned legacy/roundtrip issues. I'm sure there
More information about the Unicode