Re: New contribution

Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 20:59:38 CDT

John Hudson wrote,

> Again, I'm not opposing the encoding of 'Phoenician' on principle, but I do
> think it is
> more complex than Michael's proposal presumes, and that more consultation with
> potential
> users is desirable. I think one of the questions asked should be, frankly:
> Do you have any objections to encoding text in
> the Phoenician / Old Canaanite letters using
> existing 'Hebrew' characters? If so, what are
> these objections?

That question misses being a 'leading question' slightly. The easiest
answer for the respondent is "No", as then no further explanation on
respondent's part is necessary. Furthermore, if we are to believe
the allegations about these users, they are already performing this
reprehensible practice, and so have apparently surmounted any
objections they might have once held.

A possible question to ask which is blatantly leading would be:

          Would you have any objections if your bibliographic database
          application suddenly began displaying all of your Hebrew
          book titles using the palaeo-Hebrew script rather than
          the modern Hebrew script and the only way to correct
          the problem would be to procure and install a new font?

A fairer question to ask might be:

         Would you have any objections if the Phoenician script were given
         a separate encoding in the Unicode Standard as long as such an
         encoding wouldn't interfere with your ability to continue
         encoding texts as you please?

(And to the last, I'd be tempted to add: If so, what on Earth could those
objections be?)

Best regards,

James Kass

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT