Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Peter_Constable@... wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm just reading a colleague's recently-completed MA thesis on
> > > electronic representation of writing system descriptions,
> > and that led
> > > me to an insight that pertains to this recent thread:
> >
> > None of this looks familiar -- was it a qalam thread?
>
> No, it was on the Unicode List. The starting message is
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unicode/message/9150>.
>
> (Please do not reply to <unicode@...>: that's just a relay
> archive. The real Unicode List is <unicode@...>, which ca be reached
> through <http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html>)
>
> The discussion branched from the announcement of Lars Marius Garshol's site
> about writing systems (<http://www.ontopia.net/i18n/index.jsp>), which is
> organized according to "Daniels & Bright" classification of writing systems.
> But people on the Unicode List started disagreeing on the meaning of some
> terms, especially "featural".

Do tell them: it's simply Sampson's term for a script that represents
phonological (or phonetic?) features (subsegmental features). Korean
even does it (sort of) iconically.

Sampson 1985 *Writing Systems*.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...