Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 09:29 -0400 2004-08-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >I posted the definitions I published many years ago. What's wrong with them?
>
> They are minimalist. While they may appropriate to your article in
> the WWS, it was felt that they need elaboration to be useful in the
> context of the Glossary in the Unicode Standard.

So what would you, or anyone, suggest? Definitions are _supposed_ to be
minimalist -- look at Euclid, or Bloomfield's Postulates or Bloch's
Postulates. But the Unicode paragraph about "abugida" ceratinly isn't an
elaboration of my definition!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...