From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 13:34:36 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
> If you people, after all of this discussion, can think that it is
> possible to print a newspaper article in Hebrew language or Yiddish in
> Phoenician letters, then all I can say is that understanding of the
> fundamentals of script identity is at an all-time low. I'm really
I can't believe anyone is even talking about typesetting newspapers in Hebrew or
'Phoenician' letters: this is a total irrelevancy. I wouldn't typeset a Russian newspaper
in 'vyaz style letters, either, but that doesn't make it a separate script from Cyrillic.
Treating particular letterforms as glyph variants of existing characters does not imply
that these letterforms are suitable for any text that might be encoded with those
characters. So far as I can tell, no one is arguing such nonsense.
The issue is not whether Palaeo-Hebrew letterforms are readable by modern Jews, or whether
they may be used in religious texts -- and I note that you are not suggesting that STAM
should be separately encoded, even though it is the *only* style approved for use in Torah
scrolls --: the issue is how ancient texts should be encoded.
-- 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