On 10/11/2003 04:50, Michael Everson wrote:
At 04:04 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Languages formerly written in Cyrillic are now being written in Latin script with a one to one mapping. Proposals are in preparation for extra Hebrew characters used by particular communities for western languages which are more commonly written in Latin script. But if these usages of the Latin and Hebrew alphabets are mere ciphers, should they be supported by Unicode?
Not if they are "mere ciphers".
But are they? This was the preceding question, which you didn't answer.
Who knows? You adduce no evidence.
And then what about the use by Freemasons of the Samaritan script?
Irrelevant. The Samaritan script is roadmapped already because of its real use.
So, if Masonic Samaritan script texts (no intention of secrecy there, by the way) should be encoded as a cipher of Latin and not with the Unicode Samaritan script,
That would be stupid. What use the Masons might make of the script is their business.
does that imply that Azerbaijani Latin texts should be encoded as a cipher or Azerbaijani Cyrillic and not with Unicode Latin?
That would also be stupid, and this thread is exasperating. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
