Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 14:20:28 CST
Peter Kirk wrote,
> This is based on a historically unproven assumption that this script
> originated with the Phoenicians. I don't think it's even true that the
> oldest surviving texts in this script are Phoenician.
Would the oldest surviving texts in the Phoenician script be
in a script other than Phoenician?
> The Mesha Stele (otherwise known as the Moabite Stone) is already
> available in Hebrew script. What is the need for a separate encoding of
> the same text?
There are probably other transliterations of the text already available,
too, such as Latin. Wouldn't it be nice to see the inscription displayed
in its original script, properly encoded?
> Yes, this is what I have been talking about, mostly. Sorry to everyone
> for not making this clear. I take it as self-evident that a Phoenician
> etc text to be presented ("transliterated" if you like) with square
> Hebrew glyphs should be encoded with the Unicode Hebrew characters. What
> is in dispute is how a text to be presented with Phoenician or Old
> Canaanite glyphs should be encoded.
If the current proposal isn't derailed and eventually accepted, then
such a text should be encoded with Phoenician characters because texts
should be encoded in the scripts in which they were written unless
transliteration is the goal.
If the current proposal is derailed, then such a text should be encoded
in the PUA.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT