At 09:13 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
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.
There is not much point in producing evidence if there are no agreed criteria.
... this thread is exasperating.
Yes, but there are still no agreed criteria for distinguishing a cipher from an alternative alphabet. The suggested criteria (one to one mapping, lack of "convention", intent of secrecy etc) are problematic and contradictory. In the absence of criteria the suspicion remains that decisions e.g. not to encode Theban and Klingon are purely subjective.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
