From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 08:42:46 CDT
Dean Snyder wrote:
> This is ALL I am trying to do here - just presenting some perspectives
>that may not be apparent to non-specialists, in the hopes it will make
>for a better informed decision.
Good enough. But didn't we also hear from some specialists who say they
*do* need the disunification? If some legitimately do and some
legitimately don't, I think Unicode has to go with the inclusive option
of disunifying (those who don't can ignore the disunification if they
want, but if we keep it unified, those who want the disunification are
out of luck). Or else you have to convince the other specialists that
they really don't want it.
Really, I thought this topic had finally been laid to rest with the
expert input asking for the separate encoding.
>Clearly, unlike Mark Shoulson's experiments with modern Hebrew readers,
>Second Temple Hebrew readers read BOTH diacripts side by side. And we,
>who do research in this period, try to put ourselves in their sandals.
But you and everyone else working with Unicode also live in today's
world, in which the scripts are *not* the same. And there are others
working with these things that apparently don't view things in this light.
>But WHY? We need EXPLICIT reasons to justify a new encoding. Just saying
>that somebody wants it in XML because their font won't show up is
>insufficient justification, especially when the repercussions in the
>scholarly communities who actually use this stuff could be disruptive.
See posts by Deborah Anderson and Paul James Cowie. Is that enough? Or
are they not expert enough or something?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT