Peter Kirk wrote:It was not me who said that Michael's judgments were all accepted, but John Cowan. He has now stated that this is incorrect. I apologise for accepting uncritically the false information and for the inferences I made from it.
But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are convinced of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have trusted the judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and have either not dared to stand up to him or have simply been unqulified to do so? It amazes me that all of the existing scripts have apparently been encoded without any properly documented justification apart from one expert's unchallenged judgments.
Hey, come on, is this really necessary? "Gee, I disagree with Michael on this point, and what's more he seems arrogant to me. I bet that means that he's been running roughshod over the whole Unicode community for years and nobody's dared to stand up to him." The logic falls apart there somewhere in the middle. If you really think that some of the already-encoded scripts are poorly attested, speak up on specifics, not just "Michael must be running everything (because nobody before me would ever have stood up to him)." Not that there's much that can be done about what's already encoded, but vague accusations really do *not* help the kind of discussion we need to promote around here.
Try to keep it civil, OK?
~mark
I have not called Michael arrogant, at least not publicly.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
