On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:03 PM, John Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > Sinnathurai Srivas wrote: > >> Only a font/glyph change is more than enough to read in Bhrami. That is >> how Unicode is designed. > > We had the same debate -- at great length -- regarding the encoding of > Phoenician and other early semitic scripts that at least some users were > content to encode using existing Hebrew characters, relying on different > fonts for the appropriate style of letter. There are good arguments to be > made on both sides -- other users want to be able to make a plain text > distinction --, and whichever approach is taken a portion of users needs to > do additional work. > > In the case of Brahmi, it is long past the stage at which the encoding could > have been blocked, and there was plenty of time to have formally objected to > the proposal. There seems no point in objecting now. > > JH >
Same thing in Indic disunification: Gujarati & Kaithi, Tamil & Chola (future), Grantha & Malayalam, Telugu & Kannada, ... N. Ganesan > -- > > Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com > Gulf Islands, BC [email protected] > > Car le chant bien plus que l'association d'un texte > et d'une mélodie, est d'abord un acte dans lequel > le son devient l'expression d'une mémoire, mémoire > d'un corps immergé dans le mouvement d'un geste > ancestral. - Marcel Pérès > >
