Re: New contribution

From: John Hudson (
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 13:22:38 CDT wrote:

> Please take a look at the attached screen shot taken from:
> If anyone can look at the text in the screen shot and honestly
> say that they do not believe that it should be possible to
> encode it as plain text, then the solution is obvious:

If I provide you with an example of a Russian text that shows the pre-Petrine style
letterforms in parentheses after the post-Petrine norms, would you say that was a
convincing argument for separately encoding Old Church Slavonic as a different script from
Cyrillic? I have typeset a book that did precisely that, and I never thought for one
minute that this was a distinction that needed to be made in plain text.

Ironically, your example from has had, for me, the opposite affect of what you
intended: looking at it, I am actually less convinced of any need to encode Palaeo-Hebrew
as anything other than glyph variants of Hebrew. Your example shows a number of
identically spelled words written in two different styles. Showing Hebrew and
Palaeo-Hebrew side-by-side like that is just about the least convincing argument I've seen
for separate encoding. I was more inclined to support the encoding of 'Phoenician' before
I saw this example. Sorry.

John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks
Vancouver, BC
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