Re: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)

Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 12:22:58 CDT

  • Next message: "Re: Everson-bashing"

    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
    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