Very probably. (Or perhaps not, if we can believe Philippe this time.) I understand that some languages including Sanskrit are written in several different Indic scripts. But the difference is that there are user communities which want the Indic scripts to be encoded separately (or at least I presume that there actually are, and this was not done unilaterally by UTC and WG2 without checking on user requirements).. Peter Kirk wrote,
There are no distinctive features other than glyph shapes distinguishing Hebrew, Phoenician, Samaritan and "Early Aramaic" as proposed in ...
Couldn't the same observation be made about many of the Indic scripts?
Best regards,
James Kass
.
If there is actually user communities for these Semitic scripts which do want separately encoded scripts (as there probably is for Samaritan, but the community's requirements should be checked), then by all means let's encode separate scripts. But if the requirement is deduced only by someone who is not a user but has read Daniels & Bright... well, in that case we require better evidence, and criteria to distinguish glyph variation from separate writing systems.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
