Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > [...]
> > It [Unicode] is a product of bureaucracy, with all the
> > efficiency of the League of Nations.
>
> If you say that Unicode's specifications is a poor starting point for
> talking about the theory of writing systems, I am backing you up entirely
> (although you certainly don't need my assistance to demonstrate something in
> a field in which you are a recognized expert).
>
> If you say that Unicode is not a valid engineering solution for encoding
> text on computers, I am afraid that I'll challenge you to show up your
> computer science skills and demonstrate that.
>
> What did that long-haired guy say? "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar",
> or something like that.

Then let the computer engineer not try to impose that solution on
writing systems theory; or let them have consulted with experts in the
field _before_ laying out the "Roadmap."

Or is "qalam" supposed to be a discussion list for computer engineers?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...