Michael Everson wrote:
> So, Marco.
> I think Katakana and Hiragana are different syllabic scripts.
> I think case distinctions in Armenian are features of elements of a
> single alphabetic script.
> Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, but notice that I use the term "script" as a translation of Italian
"(sistema di) scrittura", i.e. as a synonym of "writing system". So it makes
sense to say that "Japanese" is a one script, "Latin" (or "Roman", whatever)
is another script, "Arabic" is another script, and so on.

But in the specific context of Unicode, I rather apply my programmer's forma
mentis, interpreting the term with even more zealotry than the Unicode
glossary does: in that case, "Script" is a character property of scope
"Informative" which is described in UTR#24
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24) and listed in the Unicode database in
file Scripts.txt (http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Scripts.txt).

If Scripts.txt says that the script of letter "B" is "Jabberwocky", then "B
is a Jabberwocky letter" is a true statement, whatever that could mean... If
Scripts.txt says that upper- and lower-case Latin letters are one and the
same script and kana letters are split in two different scripts, that's how
I classify them inside my software....

But I would not export this definition of "script" to the outer world: what
makes sense and is useful in an IT standard does not necessarily make sense
in other contexts.

_ Marco