From: Patrick Durusau (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 18:42:53 CDT
E. Keown wrote:
> Elaine Keown
> Dear Michael Everson:
> The *point* is that everything that's screwed up in
> Unicode Biblical Hebrew (well, almost everything)
> could have been done correctly in the first edition of
> Unicode, if the early Unicoders had listened to Alan
> Groves and others.
I don't know how anyone else on the list feels but I am really tired of
global and unspecified claims of errors in Unicode. I seem to recall
someone who claimed that more than half of the characters necessary to
encode Biblical Hebrew were missing from Unicode but has been unable for
years to produce a list of the missing characters.
Yes, yes, had it been done correctly...., whatever you think about how
it was done, what are we gaining now by chewing over old hurts and slights?
The Semitic scholars I have spoken to are very interested in getting it
right for a number of Semitic languages and not avenging old wrongs.
Offering specific comments and evidence on what you think are errors
would be a lot more productive. With an emphasis on evidence and not
opinions based on undisclosed evidence. And excluding the "somebody done
somebody wrong" song that seems so popular in this thread.
I have in the past and will no doubt in the future disagree with any
number of people on this list but there is little hope of a useful
discussion if all we do is cite opinions and not evidence to each other.
-- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 18:44:20 CDT