At 09:51 -0500 2003-12-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>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."

The Roadmap did not precede the standard. Many experts worldwide were
consulted in laying out the standard.

>Or is "qalam" supposed to be a discussion list for computer engineers?

I am not a computer engineer, if you're still unhappy with me.


Perhaps we would do better if we determined whether the words we use
are the same. I've given the definitions we use in Unicode and
ISO/IEC 10646, and cited their equivalents in D&B 1996. Is there any
way we can use terminology in the same way, or at least understand
what each other's terminology is?

Then we can ask you, Peter, about specific elements in the Roadmaps
(which shows what has been encoded and what may be encoded) that you
find to be at odds with writing systems theory.
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *