From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:39:03 EDT
Ernest Cline wrote:
>I don't really have any dogs in this fight, but let me point
>out that to my amateur eye, the use of Phoenician glyphs
>for the tetragrammaton in Figures 13, 14, and 15 of the proposal
>would seem to strengthen the argument in favor of not encoding
>Phoenician as a separate script. It looks more akin to a font
>treatment done for emphasis, along the lines of using Fraktur
>for the word Oktoberfest in the midst of ordinary Latin text.
Which only proves a truth I've learned with some pain: there's NO SUCH
THING as plain-text in pre-computer examples. None. *Every* *single*
*scrap* of written text in history is, by definition, _written_, i.e.
appearing on paper or some other medium, and thus is always subject to
debate as to whether it represents the "plaintext" or "marked-up text."
After all, when your word-processor is a pen, all glyphs and layouts are
equally fancy. So while we still need to show printed samples in
proposals, it must be borne in mind that none of them can be taken to
"prove" plain-textedness--or lack of it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 21:13:56 EDT