From: Andrew C. West (andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 09:32:16 EDT
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 05:17:27 -0700, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> Not really. Acceptance of the proposal would create an expectation that
> Phoenician texts should be encoded with the new Phoenician characters,
> and so that existing practices are wrong and should be changed.
No, I don't think so. If you transliterate a Phoenician text into Hebrew, that
is perfectly OK; if you transliterate it into Latin, Cyrillic or Mongolian, that
is also perfectly OK if your target audience is more familiar with those
scripts; and if you transliterate it using the new Phoenician characters that is
also OK if that's what you prefer.
The new Gothic block has not, and will not, stop most people from encoding
Wulfila's Bible with Latin characters. Does it make Latin transliterations of
Wulfila's Bible "wrong" ? I don't think so.
>
> >... OTOH rejection of the proposal would pretty well mean
> >that it is never going to be possible for anyone to encode Phoenician text
with
> >Phoenician Unicode characters.
> >
>
> No, because rejection is not forever. While the Unicode stability policy
> implies that once a proposal has been accepted that acceptance can never
> be reversed, a proposal which has been rejected can be resubmitted and
> accepted - although presumably the UTC would do so only if provided with
> some good new evidence that the change of mind is necessary. So your
> argument that acceptance of a doubtful proposal is better than rejection
> is compeletly backwards.
>
I entirely agree with you on that point. Mind you, if a National Body keeps
resubmitting a dubious proposal, I suspect that WG2 will acquiesce sooner or
later, whatever misgivings the UTC may have.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 10:28:41 EDT