I think we should be careful not to introduce new features, such as variation selectors, to new scripts, unless there is a strong reason to do so.
The fact that VS are now standard in Unicode does not require every Hebrew software to support them, even by ignoring them. There is a huge cost involved. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Constable > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:35 PM > To: Unicode List > Subject: RE: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7? > > > > Even with a separate Phoenician script, it might be a good idea to > > provide variation sequences > > Hmmm, gives me an idea: For those people that want to unify, > would it help if all of the Phoenician characters were > considered as variation sequences of Hebrew characters, but > for convenience we used "pre-composed", atomic characters to > represent each of those sequences? Then people wouldn't > actually need to use those sequences themselves, 'cause the > atomic characters would do the same thing. But someone could > convert the atomic characters into the real variation > sequences for comparisons with Hebrew-cum-Hebrew, and since > the variation mappings are 1:1, the same VS would be used for > all sequences, and it could just as well be a null, virtual > VS, which would make it way easier to process the data. So > the conversion would be between the atomic > Phoenician-variation-of-Hebrew-sequence characters to the > sequences of virtual-VS + Hebrew characters. And we could > tell the splitters that we were encoding a distinct script > just to keep them happy, but we'd be the ones who really know > what's happening. > > > I'm sure even Youtie would go for this. > > > Peter > > > >
