From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 11:36:54 CST
On 30/04/2004 15:57, Michael Everson wrote:
> Phoenician should be encoded because it has a demonstrable usage, even
> if it's slight and mostly paedagogical, and as one of the main
> pre-cursors to a lot of other scripts.
> That pre-cursor was not Hebrew, which developed later and did not
> engender additional scripts.
This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain text
usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and didn't
receive an answer: should Unicode encode a script whose ONLY
demonstrated usage is in alphabet charts? I think the answer is not,
because essentially these charts are graphics of glyphs, not text.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT