Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 18:07:39 CDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    Michael Everson wrote:

    >>> There are already encodings
    >>> suitable for all varieties of Northwest Semitic
    >>> scripts. One can legitimately argue, as some have,
    >>> that there are still some problems with the Hebrew
    >>> and Syriac encodings, but not that we need anything
    >>> more for the other NW Semitic languages other than
    >>> some nice FONTS!

    > Which would not address the plain-text requirement to distinguish the
    > scripts qua scripts.

    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?

    In discussions of whether to encode individual characters/glyphs -- and now, it seems,
    scripts/styles --, much seems to be made of whether there is a requirement to make a
    distinction in plain-text, while the question of whether there is a requirement to use
    plain-text in the first place gets asked less often.*

    *Except by Jony, who is always encouraging us to use markup to make distinctions.

    John Hudson

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 19 2004 - 21:54:11 CDT