At 02:21 PM 6/4/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
There is no consensus that this Phoenician proposal is necessary......
I am revisiting this one because I realise now that Ken has been somewhat economical with the truth here. There ARE cases in which entire alphabets have been given compatibility decompositions to other alphabets.
There are alphabets and alphabets.
For example there are the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols, the Enclosed Alphanumerics, and the Fullwidth and Halfwidth Forms, as well as superscripts, subscripts, modifier letters etc. These symbols
Most of them are symbol sets that are graphically derived from alphabets. They don't function like alphabets and you don't see entire text runs in one of these sets, but a character at a time.
have these compatibility decompositions because they are not considered to form a separate script, but rather to be glyph variants of characters in Latin, Greek, Katakana etc script. Do these compatibility decompositions cause technical difficulties?
Yes, they do, If people apply them. Compatibility decompositions modify the semantics of a text (a known feature of them) so you must limit their use to situations where that is the intended effect or you will disappoint your users.
Compatibility decompositions directly impact normalization.
Of course. And the point of suggesting compatibility decomposition here is precisely so that compatibility normalisation, as well as default collation, folds together Phoenician and Hebrew variant glyphs of the same script.
No. Compatibility decompositions are a blunt instrument as it stands. Read UTR#30 Character Foldings, to see what I mean.
Cross-script equivalencing is done by transliteration algorithms, not by normalization algorithms.
This begs the question.
No, I think Ken's been very clear here.
You continue "... just as one would not describe as transliteration representation in Times New Roman of a Latin script text in mediaeval handwriting or in Fraktur", which in fact is incorrect. Fraktur uses the long s which needs to be transliterated to normal s.
If what I have suggested is ridiculous, so is what the UTC has already defined for Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols.
It's not, because it's not the same issue. Symbol sets and alphabets are different. And trying to re-open and re-argue this repeatedly on this list doesn't improve the analogy.
A./
