- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:13:09 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, indic <public-i18n-indic@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > If we include history when we evaluate scripts, then it is even > questionable whether Latin and Greek are bicameral scripts since there > are no "bicameralism" in e.g. the Greek sources for the Bible. Again I come back to my previous point: if what the spec is trying to address is line-breaking and justification behaviour, coming at it from nominal script categorisation seems like a basic confusion of categories. We can get hung up on all sorts of concepts within grammatology, when really we don't need to if we instead start by defining line-breaking and justification behaviour types, and then look at how these map to individual scripts (with appropriate caveats or exceptions re. language, locale, style). That makes much more sense to me than starting by trying to categorise scripts according to unclear and non-discrete criteria and then trying to map these to line-breaking and justification behaviours. Start with the function. JH
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 22:20:18 UTC