-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ayers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai and Lao in the
> > >default ordering.
> >
> > No, it wouldn't.
>
> That's not an argument...Hmmm? Are you looking for some kind of formalized way to say, "That doesn't make sense?"
??? No.
The burden of proof here is on who claims, not who disputes. WHY would interleaving Thai and Lao make sense? Do all Thai read Lao, and vice versa?
Because the Lao letters
derive from the Thai letters, AND both are basically ordered the same
way.
(Sorry for taking that as being generally known.) NOT interfiling them is a bit like not
interfiling,
e.g., all the math A-Z with the ASCII A-Z. (Ok, that may be
pushing the parallel a bit far.)
(The Thai letters in turn
derive from the Khmer letters... Though the apparent distance is a bit
larger,
so
interfiling that one too would not be a good idea.)
> > Such interleaving is the peculiarity. It renders an ordered text
> > illegible to interleave Kannada, Sinhala, and Gujarati.
>
> Why? If the text that is ordered is in just one of the scripts,
> the result is of couse in that one script.Which is exactly the same result for noninterleaving. Errr - what was the point, then?
I'm saying that the interfiling does not matter for those that use
only
one of the scripts. For those that use multiple very closely related
(both in
letter set and internal ordering) scripts, interfiling makes
sense.
/kent k
