Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts (was: Phoenician)

From: John Cowan (
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 07:01:04 CDT

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "RE: Script vs Writing System"

    Peter Kirk scripsit:

    > >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.
    > Well, I see the point. But presumably the only people who would collate
    > a text containing a mixture of Hebrew and Phoenician, for example, are
    > those who know and understand both scripts. For anyone else this is a
    > matter of garbage in, garbage out. So it should be up to these users to
    > decide whether the legibility concern, which is a real one, is more
    > important than their otherwise expressed preference for interfiling.

    In addition, it's important to always remember that "collation" is a
    cover term for both sorting *and* searching. Collating Hebrew with
    "Phoenician" at the first level means that a search using Hebrew
    letters will find "Phoenician" text as well.

    (I am using horror quotes to remind people that Unicode "Phoenician"
    includes many non-Punic 22CWSAs, particularly Palaeo-Hebrew.)

    If indeed Serbs prefer collation equivalence between Cyrillic and
    Latin (which can only be a tailored preference, of course; in general
    we don't want to do that), this means not only that they will see
    the two interfiled in a sorted list, but also that searching for a
    Serbian word in Cyrillic will find it in Latin and vice versa.

    John Cowan
    Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
    "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
    El Auruns's reply:  "Many happy returns of the day!"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 06:58:55 CDT