I do NOT believe that this thread should be discussed on the Unicode List. I am responding to it only because Dean has let loose another brace of hares. Let us reign them in, and kill this thread now.
...
Because we are not going to use a "dynamic" model to encode Cuneiform.
Now have DONE.
I find this kind of attempted censorship of technical discussion highly distasteful, especially when conducted in such a disrespectful (!) ad hominem manner. Michael, it is quite clear that the "decision" to use the static model, which you claim has been made finally (although as I understand it the UTC has yet to come to a conclusion on the issue), does not have the full backing and confidence of the experts on cuneiform script (I am not one; nor, I think, are you). The implication is clearly that the whole issue needs to be referred back to these experts for further consideration. It will simply not work to impose on them a solution which is unacceptable to a good number of them. If there are good technical arguments against what Dean is proposing (and I agree with you at least that following the Mongolian model does not look promising - the distinction Dean makes in his last paragraph between graphical difference and semantic difference shows that the same model does not fit), then those arguments should be made in a proper technical discussion.
So please take this issue back to the drawing board, and discuss it again on the proper list, in a proper respectful manner on both sides. Michael, I think you are probably right on the technical issue. But you need to persuade Dean of that by proper argument and not impose your solution on him against his will.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
