From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 15:30:40 CDT
C J Fynn wrote:
>>More than once during this discussion, I've thought that something
> approaching a general
>>principle might be stated as 'related dead scripts should be unified; their
>>descendants may be separately encoded'.
> Where two 'related dead scripts' have substantial differences in shaping
> requirements this might create major implementation difficulties on some
See continuation of my exchange with Rick: I was presuming that technical obstacles to
unification were not at issue, since these should be considered first. If there are
technical obstacles, obviously there is no point in debating the merits of unification.
With 'Phoenician', we appear to have no technical obstacle to either the unification of a
number of ancient North Semitic scripts or, indeed, unification with the existing Hebrew
block. Hence the debate: not, as Ken suggested, how to apportion the halves of the baby,
but where to make the cut.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win. And I succeed sometimes In making him win. - Charles Peguy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT