Going back to a November 2002 posting, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Cowan writes:
> Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin scripsit: > > > The roadmap v3.5 < http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html >, as > > of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for > > "Coptic". Failing to access the linked proposal right now, what is the > > difference between this script and the coptic chars included in the > > Greek block (U+0370 - U+03FF)? > > The new proposal supplies Coptic versions of the letters currently > unified with Greek, leaving the existing Coptic-specific letters alone. > It reflects the consensus in UTC that unifying Greek and Coptic was a > mistake. I'm not questioning that there are good reasons to have separate code points for Greek and Coptic alphabets. However, just out of interest, is there a brief rationale from those involved in UTC as to why that separation of Greek and Coptic is a "good thing", while any proposal to add a Cyrillic Q and W, and to have a separate sequence for Georgian Nuskhuri letters (as well as for the existing Georgian Mkhedruli letters and Georgian Asomtavruli letters) would be a "bad thing"? I look forward to enlightenment. Best regards John Clews -- John Clews, Director and Editor Keytempo directory of musicians Keytempo Limited (Information Management), 8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, United Kingdom. 01423 888 432 (tel); 07766 711395 (mobile); Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.keytempo.com
