>But it's not MAGIC, Dean. Whether it's one of the "base signs plusproductive modifiers" you cooked up in December, or whether it's viramas, or zero-width joiners, or variation selectors,
It may not be magic but I was basically told it was taboo in Unicode.
Before I ran across free variation selectors in Unicode, people were saying that this type of model was a bad thing in and of itself and that it was a glyph description language and out of scope.
It is a bad thing in itself.
But now that I know that it is already part of the model for some scripts in Unicode and is being considered for further use, as in Han and Hebrew, I question whether this is the technical hair-brained, off-the-wall idea some have tried to make it out to be.
You are mistaken. This is a dead end for Cuneiform.
But, of course, it bears more investigation.
No, it doesn't. We aren't going to use it to encode Cuneiform.
>all of those are just neutral characters to which some sort of >behaviour is ascribed.
Which is all I'm asking for in cuneiform.
Well, stop. You aren't going to get it. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
