Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 08:22 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Then you should be chastising Unicode, not the deviser of the
> >terminology, since the terminology seems to have been taken over
> >without understanding and inaccurately.
>
> If you have an issue with the definitions in the Unicode Standard,
> please be specific about each of them.

How would I know what they are? Perhaps the definitions are perfectly
accurate. All I see is quotations showing the terms being misused.

> >How is this different from Ethiopic (except in how Unicode foolishly
> >chose to present their chart)?
>
> This is ridiculous and offensive. There is nothing "foolish" in the
> way in which Ethiopic or Tamil are presented in the Unicode code
> charts.

If the expert in Tamil thinks the presentation of Tamil is foolish, then
it's foolish.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...