Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 17:34:22 CDT

  • Next message: Patrick Andries: "Re: ISO 15924 French name "Gotique": a typo...???"

    Doug Ewell wrote at 3:07 PM on Friday, May 21, 2004:

    >Dean Snyder <dean dot snyder at jhu dot edu> wrote:
    >> ... And since Japanese and Fraktur are not separately encoded just
    >> because there would be lots of people who would use such an encoding,
    >> why would you, on that same faulty basis, support a separate encoding
    >> for Phoenician?
    >Where are you getting this from?
    >You asserted yesterday that "so many people will embrace a new Fraktur
    >range." I asserted that there was no such demand. Now you say again
    >that lots of people want a separate Fraktur encoding.
    >Since you are the one trying to draw an analogy between Phoenician and
    >Fraktur, in terms of demand for separate encoding, I think the burden is
    >on you to prove that such a demand exists for Fraktur. Otherwise the
    >analogy is pointless.

    I've never said there was a demand for it; I've only said that lot's of
    people would USE it if it were encoded. That is my opinion. Do you
    disagree that lots of people would use a Fraktur encoding? (Especially if
    we're using "lots", as I am, in comparison to the number of people who we
    think would use separately encoded Phoenician.) And if separate Fraktur
    and Roman German encodings WERE used you would face the same kinds of
    problems we would face with separately encoded Phoenician and Jewish Hebrew.


    Dean A. Snyder

    Assistant Research Scholar
    Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
    Computer Science Department
    Whiting School of Engineering
    218C New Engineering Building
    3400 North Charles Street
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850
    cell: 717 817-4897

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 17:34:25 CDT