🚀 go-pugleaf

Subject: generalised alphabets (letters + diacritics)

	One conclusion which follows from the last month of discussions 
on accented languages is, that we should be happy that we have ASCII and ISCII,
and that at least one of them has a lasting place in both past and future.

	The other, being in accordance with MEGATRENDS, is that we do have 
 and will have also a need for more general method (since French are not going
 to give up any cheese) of describing accented letters.

	So, taking some guidance from mathematics [ which can eat three
 alphabets for breakfest and still have Alef for lunch] how would you
 people feel about the following method FOR CODING of  complex alphabets? 

  1) ASCII or ISCII  is and will remain a plain vanilla work-horse 

  2) As time will pass, more and more groups (national or application)
	will ask for extensions. 

BTW:   I recall that DP  - in the Olden Times - used capitals only, 
 (so did first typewriters ) - now - as pendulums swings back - 
we have unix excess of   low-case-good   /  capital-case-bad   era.

 3) To accomodate such (eventual future) demand, in a manner which will
    not degenerate into an orgy of escapes in escapes,  consider  following: 

 Lets say that we define three sets of signs:
 super-scripts, sub-scripts and (normal level) base-scripts.  We than
 can create e.g. a french set by combining latin base with ` ^ o  ...
 set of super-scripts, German by combining latin base with .. (umlaut),
 swedish with tiny o superscript and base level overstrike / etc..

 We can have some mathematical symbols as letters with - + * etc (either
 above or next to letters) - and just about every other national alphabet.
 
 It is clear that any national group will need and will use (e.g. printers)
 which will produce what-ever ornamentations their forefathers dreamed up.
 By creating a standart - which will define any such set - in an agreed 
 upon manner - we can still maintain some order in the madness: 
a) we do not force anybody to give up their favorite excess and
b) we do not force ( by default) each national task force to dream-up
 their unique and (naturally incompatible) methods of achieving their goal
                                                           Any comments?

                                pom@under.s1.gov ||  @s1-under.UUCP