Re: Phoenician

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 06:39:30 CDT

  • Next message: Patrick Andries: "Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician)"

    At 07:34 -0700 2004-05-10, Peter Kirk wrote:

    >Is there any really good reason not to mix two scripts, which are
    >according to many people actually variants of one script but which
    >are (if your proposal is accepted) seperately encoded for the
    >convenience of some scholars?

    Yes. The default template is for default behaviour. Most people in
    the world use a tiny subset of characters available, and don't care
    much about what happens in scripts which are not their own. This sort
    of battle was fought over Runic: Runologists wanted the Runes to be
    sorted in Latin alphabetical order, but this didn't make sense to the
    other clients of the script. The Latin ordering is considered to be a
    special tailoring.

    >This sounds to me like the kind of rule which is made to be broken.
    >If all the 22 CSWA scripts are collated together by default, this
    >would significantly reduce the objections to encoding them as
    >separate scripts.

    I would have just as many objections to doing that as I would with
    unifying it with Hebrew. Users don't expect this kind of interfiling
    when looking things up in ordered lists. Interfiling of scripts
    impedes legibility.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 11 2004 - 06:40:23 CDT