I am not trying to drum up support for a dynamic cuneiform encoding model; I am trying to find out technical encoding information as to its feasibility.
What, idle curiosity?
I would like to be convinced that the dynamic model is a bad idea."
And for some reason everything that I, and Ken, and Rick, and others have said is not enough?
The encoding model issues at hand should not be decided by cuneiform specialists without broad input by encoding specialists;
It has already been decided by both. In 2001.
We could have saved a full month's worth of emails on this subject if you had only mentioned free variation selectors on day one.
Why would I have done that? I am not interested in this Gedankenexperiment, and I do not generally favour the use of variation selectors.
Did you know about them?
Of course.
Didn't you notice the connection between them and what I was suggesting for cuneiform?
I might have done.
If so, why did you not tell us about them?
Because I'm not interested in encouraging this tutorial.
It would have been great, and much less "irritating" for us all, if we had only been given this information early on, instead of having to ferret much of it out on our own.
We can't spoonfeed expertise in the Unicode Standard. Certainly not when the tutorial in question is about an encoding model which is not going to be used for a particular script.
Only now, with my having just learned of the mere EXISTENCE of free variation selectors in Unicode, and having made that existence known to the cuneiformists on the cuneiform email list, do I feel we can adequately begin an, at least, meagerly informed discussion of the issue as it pertains to a dynamic model for cuneiform in Unicode.
No, we do not need to rehearse the pros and cons of the "dynamic" model for Cuneiform already. Abundant evidence for why it has not been chosen has already been presented.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
