Re: New contribution

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 10:05:45 CST

On 29/04/2004 19:04, John Hudson wrote:

> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> This sounds a lot like what is being proposed, modulo a name-change:
>> we're working on a Samaritan proposal, Hebrew's already there, and
>> Michael has proposed Old Canaanite, which for some reason he has
>> chosen to call Phoenician. The name may be ill-chosen, and it isn't
>> too late to change it, but it sounds like you're in general agreement
>> with me and Peter Kirk.
> Mark, are you sure that you and Peter are in general agreement? Peter
> seems to be opposing the encoding of Old Canaanite / Phoenician /
> Ancient North Semitic outright, ...

No, John, I am not. I am asking searching questions about the
desirability of such encoding. I have yet to see any proper
justification of it, if we leave aside character tables which are
clearly not plain text. And I have yet to see any evidence that the user
community has a requirement for it.

> ... while you and Dean seem to be supporting some kind of unified
> encoding for some subset of ancient Near-Eastern scripts separate from
> the existing Hebrew block. [On the question of Aramaic, the agreement
> seems closer.]
I would be quite happy to agree to such a proposal if it is properly

Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

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