From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 22 2004 - 01:37:53 CDT
Dean Snyder wrote,
> What I said was that most of the Hebrew fonts that people have are Latin
> clones (i.e., overloaded ASCII), and I would bet that the corresponding
> Phoenician fonts use the same (ASCII) code points for the same characters
> as their Hebrew counterparts.
How could you lose? If an upper-ASCII Phoenician font used differing
code points for the Phoenician letters than an upper-ASCII Hebrew font
did for the comparable Hebrew letters, then the Phoenician font wouldn't
be a corresponding one and the Hebrew font wouldn't be its counterpart.
But, there were competing code pages for Hebrew and there were some
font developers who didn't bother to check for precedent, Hebrew or
otherwise. I have an ASCII range Phoenician font here which maps
Phoenician glyphs to 'typewriter characters' and has nothing mapped
in upper-ASCII, but this font was never released.
However, a similar font might have been used when making this
which shows the "A Bequest Unearthed - Phoenicia..." home page
in the English language transliterated into the Phoenician alphabet.
This transliteration might have been accomplished by a font change,
or it might have been generated programatically.
Some Hebrew code pages,
<quoting from somewhere>
Hebrew logical (windows-1255)
Hebrew implicit (ISO-8859-8I, similar but not identical to the one above)
Hebrew DOS (which is almost not in use)
The attached small graphic shows a crop of the top of this letter
in Notepad with a simple font switch.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 22 2004 - 01:38:45 CDT