From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 18:07:39 CDT
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 19 2004 - 21:54:11 CDT