At 08:39 -0800 2004-01-26, Peter Kirk wrote:Thank you.
I have submitted to the UTC a proposal for changing the default collation for the various forms of the Greek letter koppa, and uploaded it to http://www.qaya.org/academic/greek/Koppa-proposal.pdf. Your comments are welcome.
I have a comment.
Sorry, Michael, but this is important because I understand that there will be a separate UTC discussion on collation of san and sampi, and I don't want UTC members to be confused by rereading N1938. You are by no means the only person to be confused by these two characters, but see http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/numerals.html#sampi and http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/nonattic.html#san. I don't say things like this for the sake of it but only to avoid perpetuating misunderstandings.See also Michael Everson's 1998 proposal for separate encoding of archaic koppa, http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1938.pdf (note that Everson confuses san and sampi).
Did I, in 1998? Golly. Must you point it out in quite this way, Peter? It just sounds like that Simpsons characcter who points and says "Hah hah!".
I note that Everson proposed disunification of alphabetic koppa (variety 1) from numeric koppa (varieties 2-4); but the decision taken by Unicode and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 was to disunify archaic koppa (varieties 1-2) from modern koppa (variety 4).
Jeepers. Could it be that in discussion with other experts, the idea was refined, and that this does not imply that Everson was -- horrors -- wrong?
I have made no suggestion that either of these two disunifications is wrong. They are simply different; and the one chosen has now become the standard.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
