Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at  8:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:

On 11/1/2018 12:33 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:

 On 10/31/2018 11:27 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:

 
 but we don't have an agreement that reproducing all variations in
 manuscripts is in scope.


In fact, I would say that in the UTC, at least, we have an agreement
that that clearly is out of scope!

Trying to represent all aspects of text in manuscripts, including
handwriting conventions, as plain text is hopeless.  There is no
principled line to draw there before you get into arbitrary
calligraphic conventions.


Your statements are perfect examples of "attacking a straw man":


Perhaps you are joking?

Not sure which of us you were suggesting as the jokester here.

I don't think it's a joke to recognize that there is a continuum here
and that there is no line that can be drawn which is based on
straightforward principles. This is a pattern that keeps surfacing the
deeper you look at character coding questions.

Looks like you completely missed my point. Nobody ever claimed that
reproducing all variations in manuscripts is in scope of Unicode, so
whom do you want to convince that it is not?

Looks like you are missing my point about there being a continuum with not clear lines that can be perfectly drawn a-priori.

"reproducing all variations in manuscripts" is only one possible end point of this continuum, and therefore, less interesting than the overall pattern.

A./