From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 12:22:15 CDT
On 02/05/2004 16:32, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 11:10 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> At 10:36 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> Perhaps if you would look at the proposal you would see the
>>> demonstrated use of the script given in the figures there.
>> Stop poking fun at me and treating me as an imbecile. Of course you
>> know that I know that this script was actually used.
> You are the one who said that its *only* demonstrated usage is in
> alphabet charts.
No, I didn't say that this was true of Phoenician. My question was, if
there exists a script which is attested only in alphabet charts (as was
until recently true of the Caucasian Albanian script), should Unicode
encode it? The next point would be, if the only people who use a script
for any purpose other than alphabet charts do not need it to be
separately encoded, should it be encoded simply for the sake of the
alphabet charts? This latter seems to be the situation with Phoenician,
or seemed to be before Deborah's contribution.
>> The question is, is it a separate script, or is it a set of variant
>> glyphs for what should be a unified 22 character Semitic script
>> (although currently known as Hebrew)?
> It's a separate script.
That is your expert opinion, but the UTC has yet to decide.
-- 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