----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:22 AM Subject: Re: Pigpen/Masonic/Poundex
> Chris Jacobs scripsit: > > > But you still need to pick one of the variants as the _plaintext_ (in > > crypto sense) variant, and then you can deem the others to be crypted by > > monoalphabetic substitution. > > *shrug* > > There are lots of ways to do it, but no compelling need for > standardization. There is no need for unicoded pigpen. However, If you _did_ want to do pigpen in unicode you _would_ need to standardise it. This seems to be a clear difference from colorful scripts, where I think there is an agreement about which glyph represents which sound. So I think the analogy between pigpen and colorful scripts does not hold. > > -- > "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan > useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com > internal links in forms which are hideously [EMAIL PROTECTED] > over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev > >
