On 2017/03/26 22:15, Michael Everson wrote:

On 26 Mar 2017, at 09:12, Martin J. Dürst <due...@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 are others.


Regards,   Martin.

Reply via email to