From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 19:12:34 CDT
Dean Snyder <dean dot snyder at jhu dot edu> wrote:
>> 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
> 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.)
I absolutely DO disagree with the premise that lots of people would use
a separate Fraktur encoding. To my knowledge there has been no request
for one, and no serious desire on the part of scholars or anyone else to
encode Fraktur text separately from Antiqua text. I believe users would
find it troublesome in the extreme to create a new encoding to represent
German-language text where there has only been one before (unlike the
apparent situation with Phoenician).
Note, by the way, that I would really like to leave the Fraktur math
symbols out of this discussion. They have always been presented by the
standard as math symbols only, not to be used for normal text. The fact
that people aren't in fact using them for normal text says more about
adherence to the standard than about whether anyone would use a "real"
Dean later wrote:
> What I was trying to say, of course, was that, since Japanese and
> Fraktur were not separately encoded EVEN THOUGH there would have been
> lots of people who would use such encodings, a fortiori the far
> smaller number of potential Phoenician users should not be taken as
> decisive for its encoding.
Again, there is this assertion that "there would have been lots of
people who would use" a separate Fraktur encoding. Is this getting old
Dean, if you insist on using Fraktur as an example that Unicode does not
separately encode script variants or font variants or "diascripts"
(whatever that means) that "lots of people" would use, you must show
some shred of evidence that "lots of people" would in fact use a
separate Fraktur encoding. Does that make sense? Saying "that is my
opinion" does not constitute evidence. Otherwise the analogy is
"Since the digit 3 with flat top was not separately encoded from 3 with
rounded top EVEN THOUGH there would have been lots of people who would
use such an encoding, a fortiori the far smaller number of potential
Phoenician users should not be taken as decisive for its encoding."
Do you see how the absence of evidence that "lots of people" want
flat-top 3 and round-top 3 encoded separately completely invalidates the
premise? This is what you are doing by continuing to claim that "lots
of people" would use a separate Fraktur encoding.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 23 2004 - 19:15:27 CDT