Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 12:22:58 CDT
Mike Ayers scripsit:
> I agree with those who think that interleaving Phoenician ad Hebrew
> would not be a good default. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: is
> it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be able to
> create and use a nondefault sort order?
I see no reason to believe it. Language scholars are not, as a
rule, independently wealthy, so they cannot commission specialized
sorting/searching tools; nor are they a mass market which can expect
such tools to be provided for it by market forces.
Putting aside all hypothetical cases, and focusing on those who would use
Unicode Phoenician (which itself constitutes a unification of several
similar scripts, each with its own corpus), just who is ill-served by
treating Phoenician as first-order equivalent to (dotless, final-less)
Hebrew for the purposes of searching and sorting only? Those who deal
in palaeo-Hebrew will obviously be better off, and I do not see that
anyone else is worse off.
-- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com firstname.lastname@example.org Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. --Oscar Wilde
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 12:24:24 CDT