Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: John Jenkins (
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 20:11:31 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: problems in Public Review 33 UTF Conversion Code Update"

    On May 19, 2004, at 5:07 PM, John Hudson wrote:

    > Michael, can you briefly outline the points regarding this
    > 'requirement'? The only one that has been repeatedly referred to in
    > this too-long discussion is the Tetragrammaton usage; I'm not sure
    > whether that constitutes a requirement for plain-text or not. What are
    > the other points?

    You go down to your local cybercafe to read your email from your
    grandmother telling you all about your nephew's bar-mitzvah.
    Unfortunately, your local cybercafe has no modern Hebrew (or Yiddish)
    installed, but they *do* have a Phonecian one. You cannot, as a
    result, even tell what language your grandmother is writing you in, let
    alone what it means.

    Of course, this criterion is difficult to apply to two varieties of
    writing separated by thousands of years -- and it might behoove the UTC
    to discuss the problems involved -- but if we accept minimum legibility
    as a factor in deciding when to unify/separate, I think it's a valid

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 19 2004 - 20:12:26 CDT