From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 18:09:08 CDT
> Or (making the missed point explicit):
I attempted to bring this thread back on track yesterday, but
since it seems to have veered off into the ditch again, we
may as well spin our wheels some more, I guess. :-(
> If the UTC did consider the potential for large numbers of users as a
> decisive criterion for encoding a script,
The UTC and WG2 *do* consider the potential for a significant
number of users as *one* criterion for encoding a script. It may
not be a *decisive* criterion, and people's opinions will vary
concerning how large a number of users has to be to be considered
significant. Certainly more than one.
> Japanese would be separately encoded.
This is an utter non demonstrandum. "Japanese" is a writing
system, not a script. The Unicode Standard does not encode
writing systems -- it encodes scripts. And the scripts used
by the Japanese writing system *are* separately encoded --
separately from other scripts.
> I can assure you, that there would be many users for a
> separately encoded Japanese,
On what basis do you assert that? Especially given that there
are, in this case, literally tens of millions of users of
Japanese language data represented using the characters
encoded in the Unicode Standard as currently defined.
> just as there would be for a separately encoded Fraktur,
A faulty analogy, as well as another assertion with no
apparent evidence to back it up.
> many more, of course, than users for Phoenician.
Well, this is likely to be true, in any case. ;-)
> since Japanese and Fraktur are not separately encoded just because there
> would be lots of people who would use such an encoding,
Unless you are using "just because" in some sense I am unfamiliar
with in the English language, this claim makes no sense whatsoever
The Japanese writing system and the Fraktur style of the
Latin script are not separately encoded because neither is
adjudged to be a distinct script, not because of some
speculative census of potential users.
> why would you, on that same faulty basis,
Making a nonsensical claim, then (falsely) attributing it to
others as the basis of claims they make would seem to be a
double red herring to me.
> support a separate encoding for Phoenician?
Michael, I, and a number of others have already stated
sufficient reasons for why we would support a separate encoding
for the Phoenician (~Old Canaanite) script. Refusing to
accept those reasons is insufficient grounds for continuing
to pose rhetorical questions implying that no one has ever
posted such reasons. Refusing to accept those reasons as
sufficient to convince *you* of the need for an encoding is
no grounds whatsoever for implying that they might not seem
sufficient to others.
> It's inconsistent thinking, and other reasons will need to
> be found.
Well, I don't consider there to be a need for other reasons.
Therefore, there *is* no need for other reasons.
*winks to those who get it*
*whoosh for those who don't*
By the way, as your attempted analogy above appears to demonstrate
a failure to understand the distinction between a writing system
and a script for the purposes of encoding in the Unicode Standard,
perhaps you would consider recusing yourself from further
argumentation regarding the proposed encoding of Phoenician.
No? I thought not, but I had to give it a try.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 18:10:01 CDT