Peter T. Daniels scripsit:

> That doesn't make sense; on the one hand, the Coptic letters are shaped
> differently from the Greek,

Indeed, Michael Everson's demo page at
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2444.pdf shows that Coptic text
is more readable in Cyrillic or Gothic than in modern Greek minuscule.
(I think a fairer comparison would have been with modern Greek majuscule,
though.) As a contrasting example of script styles that are rightly
unified, he also gives us English, German, and Irish texts in parallel
Roman, Gaelic, and Fraktur renderings (IMHO, the Fraktur Irish is the
most bizarre).

> and on the other, Coptic is a system où tout
> se tient, and Greek is a system où tout se tient, and mixed together
> they should not be.

Hey, I wasn't there when they did it.

> Are they going to do the same with Gothic? The two
> Slavic scripts?

No and no. Gothic and Cyrillic are separately encoded; Glagolitic is not yet
encoded but will be represented separately.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <jcowan@...>
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)