From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Rather than encode a half dozen different > "scripts" for this, one for each local orthographic tradition, the > entire script was carefully "unified" to enable representation of > any of the local varieties accurately with the overall script > encoding. I suspect that a similar approach will be required to > finish the encoding of Tifinagh.
At least! That's what I wanted to hear: that the script will be encoded on a glyphic approach, with no intented association with the actual phoneme they represent. The ordering of these glyphs and their naming will possibly be consistent with one culture, but not with another. And each culture will use only a subset of the encoded glyphs... And so UCA default collation will work reasonnably well for one culture and not the others that will require tailoring. Now, how will we define foldings, and text boundaries for the other cultures? I don't know... How will we perform intercultural semantic analysys for texts that share the same words and radicals? Difficult to answer... It will even be hard to define any transliteration scheme between them (it would require identification of the cultural convention, and not only of the language, and texts written for one culture will look as completely undecipherable in another one). Such problems do not exist with the same level between Serbian Latin and Serbian Cyrillic, as there's no ambiguity in the transliteration to use...
