Re: New contribution

From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 13:50:41 CDT


Mark Davis wrote:

> The question for me is whether the scholarly representations of the Phoenician
> would vary enough that in order to represent the pal├Žo-Hebrew (or the other
> language/period variants), one would need to have font difference anyway. If so,
> then it doesn't buy much to encode separately from Hebrew. If not, then it would
> be reasonable to separate them.

Given the sophistication of today's font technology, I don't think the encoding question
can be addressed in this way. Regardless of whether 'Phoenician' letterforms are
separately encoded, it is perfectly easy to include glyphs for these and for typical
Hebrew square script (or any of a number of other different Hebrew script styles) in a
single font. If the 'Phoenician' forms are not separately encoded, they can still be
accessed as glyph variants using a variety of different mechanisms. The question is
whether the distinction is necessary in plain text.

John Hudson

-- 
Tiro Typeworks        www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC        tiro@tiro.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