From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 19:11:58 CDT
At 03:34 PM 5/21/2004, Dean Snyder wrote:
>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.
Yes, lots of people do - they are called mathematicians.
And last I looked, we gave them not one, but two separate ranges for
Fraktur symbols
from 1D4504 to 1D537, and from 1D56C to 1D59F.
> >
> >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?
For ordinary text, few people will need the separately encoded Fraktur.
Its much easier to enter it as Latin and apply a font shift.
>(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.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 19:12:42 CDT