Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 11:00:06 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    Peter Kirk wrote:

    > .....
    > Of course. And the point of Unicode is to move away from this
    > situation of multiple encodings for the same script, by providing a
    > single defined encoding for each one and properly defined conversion
    > paths from legacy encodings.

    Yes, for *each* one.

    > With Unicode, there will be no need to continue to encode Phoenician
    > or Hebrew with 8-bit masquerading fonts and visual ordering (and yes,
    > Michael, such things are a big problem and I agree that we should try
    > to eradicate them), and it will be possible to convert texts to proper
    > Unicode encoding. But if there are two competing Unicode encodings for
    > the same text, and no defined mappings between them (as both
    > compatibility equivalence and interleaved collation seem to have been
    > ruled out), the advantages of going to Unicode are lost.

    Even if there is no defined mapping between the two scripts, it won't be
    difficult to make one. Interleaved collation can be achieved creating
    and using a tailored collation table. There's no rocket science
    involved in doing this. Once person has created these they can share
    them with the community of Semitic scholars that has a need for them.

     Why are you making these things out to be difficult? If you've no one
    else to do it, I volunteer to make a interleaved collation table for
    Phoenician & Hebrew and make a utility to trans-code from Phoenician to
    Hebrew - once Phoenician is encoded. These should take much less time
    write than your responses in this discussion.

    - Chris

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 11:03:32 CDT