On 2017/03/23 22:32, Michael Everson wrote:
What is right for Deseret has to be decided by and for Deseret users, rather
than by script historians.
Odd. That view doesn’t seem to be applicable to CJK unification.
Well, it may not seem to you, but actually it is. I have had a lot of
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 05:54, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
> Hello Michael, others,
>
> [Fixed script name in subject.]
>
> On 2017/03/23 09:03, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner wrote:
>
>>> There's the same characters
2017-03-23 6:54 GMT+01:00 Martin J. Dürst :
> Hello Michael, others,
>
> On 2017/03/23 09:03, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner wrote:
>>
>
> There's the same characters here, written in different ways.
>>>
>>
>> No,
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:23:27 +0100
Otto Stolz wrote:
> Same issue as with German sharp S: The blackletter »ß« derives from an
> ſ-z ligature (thence its German name »Eszet«), whilst the Roman type
> »ß« derives from an ſ-s ligature. Still, we encode both variants as
>
Hello Michael, others,
On 2017/03/23 09:03, Michael Everson wrote:
Its the same diphthong (a sound) written with different
letters.
Am 23.03.2017 um 06:54 schrieb Martin J. Dürst:
I think this may well be the *historically* correct analysis. And that
may have some influence on how to encode
Martin J. Dürst wrote,
> What is right for Deseret has to be decided by
> and for Deseret users, rather than by script
> historians.
The Universal Character Set is used by everyone, including script
historians. While modern day deployment of the script is determined
by its users, the proper
Hello Michael, others,
[Fixed script name in subject.]
On 2017/03/23 09:03, Michael Everson wrote:
On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner wrote:
There's the same characters here, written in different ways.
No, it’s not. Its the same diphthong (a sound) written with
7 matches
Mail list logo