Re: New contribution

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 17:52:02 EDT

  • Next message: Patrick Andries: "Re: New contribution"

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Patrick Andries <>
    > Ernest Cline a écrit :
    > >No more so than Japanese becomes a different language when written
    > >as romanji. Language and script are distinct and a given language is
    > >often encoded using several different scripts. There may be points
    > >against favoring writing Paleo-Hebrew with a Phoenician script instead
    > >of the Hebrew script, but this isn't one of them.
    > Well, since this seems to be the center of some controversy, isn't the
    > methodology one should adopt to ask what the community of users thinks :
    > is this for you (plural) two different scripts or are those just
    > stylistic variations of the same script (Hebrew). The community of users.
    > And then to record this as an encoding guideline in the proposal
    > ("Paleo-Hebrew texts should be encoded using Phoenician codepoints" or
    > ""for Paleo-Hebrew texts texts should be encoded using the Hebrew
    > codepoints").
    > I don't really know, I just wish we could reconcile both sides here ;-)

    How about the following:

    When deciding how to encode ancient scripts in Unicode, sometimes
    arbitrary distinctions must be made between scripts that had a
    continuous evolution from one form into another. Depending upon
    the point of view of the author, a text written in a transitional form,
    such as Paleo-Hebrew, might be encoded in Unicode as either
    of the two scripts that it serves as a bridge between, in this case,
    Phoenician and Hebrew.

    Depending upon how the passions run, this might mollify both sides
    or it might make them both madder than they are. :)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 18:33:54 EDT