From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 13:06:40 CDT
On 01/05/2004 11:21, Rick McGowan wrote:
>Peter Kirk wrote...
>>But on the other hand, the lack of a consensus among *any*
>>people that they have a need for an encoding does seem to imply that
>>there is no need for an encoding.
>In this, you are utterly wrong, I'm afraid. We (in UTC) have seen
>situations before where one group desires an encoding for a script that is
>strongly opposed by another group -- even for the *same* language in the
>*same* historical period. We can't ignore the people who ask for the script
>to be encoded on the grounds that there happen to be some other people who
>don't want or need the encoding! I'm surprised you could even think that.
You are utterly misunderstanding me. Who are the people who ask for the
script to be encoded? Michael Everson, who knows so little Phoenician
that he doesn't know how similar it is to Hebrew? James Kass, who
doesn't know that "in Phoenician" means "in the Phoenician language"
rather than "in Phoenician script"? Anyone else? Perhaps one or two, and
no evidence for a "group". Not nearly as many as want Klingon encoded.
Do they have an actual use for the script? Have they demonstrated a need
for it or that, if encoded, anyone will actually use it? Surely these
are the criteria for encoding a script, not just that one person has
asked for it to be encoded and a few have supported him.
>>I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL
>>that ANYONE AT ALL has a need for this encoding.
>Ahem. Define "need". On this list we don't have the right set of people to
>ask, actually. That is why the proposal has already been forwarded to
>other people on other lists who may (or do) want or "need" the encoding.
"Need" is more than just "want". I am thinking of people who would
actually use this encoding, who would prefer to use it, and who are not
adequately provided for by existing solutions e.g. using the Hebrew script.
Well, the only people known to me to support this encoding are members
of this list. The proposer has not provided in the proposal the names of
anyone else or any other information about anyone else. If you have some
private information or response from others, while I can't demand that
you reveal it here, I would assume that this will be made available to
the UTC. I would also assume that if the UTC has no evidence for wider
support, the proposal will be rejected.
>And as usual, on this public list, this is entirely my own opinion and
>does not reflect any official position or policy, even if Peter Kirk pokes
>fun at this disclaimer.
I'll let you off this time. :-)
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT