From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 22:40:08 EDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> I don't believe that anyone has any realistic technical
> objection to Michael's proposal in any detail, and
> since it is clear that failing any technical flaw the
> proposal will proceed to be approved by the character
> encoding committees...
At the risk of launching the discussion into the aridity of deep space, I'm not aware of
any technical flaw in the Klingon proposal. Surely the absence of technical flaws does not
guarantee approval of *any* proposal.
Ken, I think your characterisation of today's discussion is a little unfair: to be sure,
there has been a lot of hot (arid) air expelled, but I think I understand better now Peter
Kirk's objection to the proposal than I did yesterday, and there do seem to be genuine --
and potentially technical -- questions regarding the encoding of Palaeo-Hebrew texts, in
which context the ancient North Semitic letterforms are reasonably considered glyph
variants of existing Hebrew characters.
Perhaps the problem is not the proposed disunification of Hebrew from Phoenician (or
whatever else it might be called), but the existing, implied disunification of the Hebrew
block from the common ancient script.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win. And I succeed sometimes In making him win. - Charles Peguy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 23:15:20 EDT