Re: Unicode definitions of script types

At 13:14 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > >So someone took the two terms from me but made up their own definitions.
> > >What am I supposed to do about that?
>>
>> Copy the two terms in question to this list. Then propose amendments
>> to correct the definitions. Let's see if that produces something
>> actionable.
>
>"Actionable"? You think I should sue?

Please don't be obtuse. "Actionable" means that if there is text in
the Unicode book which can be improved, and if you do as I have
suggested and propose amendments to the existing definitions in order
to correct whatever it is that you think is wrong with them, then
such text could be considered by the editorial committee.

>My definitions of the terms are in the glossary at the front of WWS,
>which is probably where the words were taken from; when did Unicode
>begin?

Irrelevant. If you are unhappy with the definitions, and can do as I
have suggested, perhaps the definitions can be improved. If you
cannot, well, then, please stop complaining about the definitions in
the Unicode Standard.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com