> I would actually support the author’s “Greco Unification” strawman if it could be done in a principled way
A 5 year old tech note by a Unicode Consortium member at http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn26 gives 7 reasons "why the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts have been separately encoded, rather than being encoded as a single script", and 12 reasons why the Han script was unified.
Edit: These 7 reasons make a good case why such "Greco Unification" wouldn't work.
I'm not convinced that this isn't just post-hoc justification.
All seven reasons boil down to "It's always been done this way".
I don't see how "a" in the Latin alphabet as used in English is any different to the "a" in the Latin alphabet used in Polish - in particular they are rendered in the same way.
Yet the article claims that even though Chinese and Japanese versions of characters now appear wildly different they still represent the same script so bad luck. Should the Unicode consortium be concerned with the glyphs or the semantics? Seems they are selectively doing both.
A 5 year old tech note by a Unicode Consortium member at http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn26 gives 7 reasons "why the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts have been separately encoded, rather than being encoded as a single script", and 12 reasons why the Han script was unified.
Edit: These 7 reasons make a good case why such "Greco Unification" wouldn't work.