> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Michael Everson
> You don't know whether or not they were only used in a single > document. You know only that I *own* that single document. You are > declaring the characters guilty until proved innocent. That's > antagonistic. Indeed. Didn't everyone have to become a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Character Rights before subscribing? > Khoisian phonology is rather > esoteric, after all. Esoteric?? (Do we perhaps need to review the meaning of this word?) > > > Private use? Be > >> serious, John. That's a pretty ridiculous suggestion. > > > >I am serious. The PUA is the proper place for these things. > > I am gobsmacked. On what grounds are these not characters? They are > not glyph representations of other characters. The PRE-PALATAL N is > described in terms of its phonology as being neither N nor N WITH > LEFT HOOK. If I publish a web page using DIAGONAL X WITH TURNED HOOK to represent something that's not quite this or that cardinal phonetic value, does it automatically become a character worthy of encoding? This isn't about character rights. It's about criteria for deciding what to encode or not to encode. Peter Constable
