[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Thu Apr 10 10:13:14 CEST 2003

At 22:14 -0400 2003-04-09, John Cowan wrote:
>Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
>>  This is clearly insufficient as a *definition* of a script.
>>  It applies equally well to an alphabet, for example.
>Complain to ME, not me.  I was presuming that when a standard defines a
>term, the use of the term in the standard is per the definition.

The standard was written by a committee. The standard makes use of 
scripts and script variants. You are welcome to propose clearer 
definitions for a future edition.... Anyway the script definition was 
simply lifted from 10646, where Hans and Hant are unified as 

>  > This would apply to English written in IPA for most English
>>  speakers. That doesn't make IPA a distinct script.
>As you may remember, I've always thought that IPA was not Latin script,
>even if IPA characters are borrowed into Latin script occasionally.
>For one thing, IPA is caseless.

Yes, but you'd be wrong. IPA is a special use of Latin, but it's 
still Latin. (I wish that letters like THETA were cloned though).

>  > This does not apply to the Chinese case, which is a deliberate
>>  orthographic reform *of* the writing system, but a reform
>>  which doesn't change anything fundamental about the script
>>  except the conventional shapes used for many characters.
>The only difference between the English alphabet and the pig-pen
>(aka Masonic) cipher is the "conventional shapes used for many

But not a reform *of* the writing system. :-)
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list