Re: New contribution

From: John Cowan (
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 01:02:10 CST

Kenneth Whistler scripsit:

> But we are talking edge case here, because through all the double-talk
> going on, there still seems an obvious consensus that there *is*
> a Phoenician script (well illustrated in the examples in the
> proposal), used for an extensive period, adapted for various
> languages, and precursor to many other writing systems. But the
> hoo-haw seems to focus on the identity of "Palaeo-Hebrew" and
> how *it* should be encoded, even though it is but one of many
> varieties covered by the proposed encoding.

There are two separate, though intertwined, kerfuffles.

One is about the name of the N2741 encoding and whether or not
it includes the edge case of Palaeo-Hebrew. My position on this
is straightforward: I don't care what it's called, and I don't really
care if it includes PH or not (though I think it makes more sense
if it does, marginally), provided the answers are spelled out.
Michael has provided answers, and if the UTC doesn't like his
answers it can substitute others.

The other is about making arbitrary branch cuts in the abjad tree:
Why are they made just where they are made and not elsewhere?
And is there any need to make such cuts at all? This is the
one that matters to me. It seems to me that not doing it will
reduce confusion (fewer choices makes for greater certainty),
eliminate unnecessary labor, and provide a faster path to usable
implementation, which in the end is what we want.

I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong. I am not willing to be
outshouted, or trumped, or given Awful Warnings about what will
happen if I don't recognize the Obvious. (Actually, I don't mind
getting those things at all, but they aren't going to make me stop.)

Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John Cowan
is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901) 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT