Re: Phoenician

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 07:57:00 CDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Phoenician"

    Michael Everson wrote:

    > 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.

    OTOH applications that generate collated lists should ideally provide a
    straightforward means of applying special tailoring tables.

    - Chis

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 11 2004 - 08:00:04 CDT