From: Mike Ayers (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 18:45:05 CDT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of E. Keown
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:47 PM
> 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.
[lots of self scensoring]
[lots more self censoring]
Elaine, please review these threads. Among the things that stand
clear, notable is the fact that a group of Semiticists, however large or
unequivocal, is not the only userbase served by Unicode. There is an
explicit requirement to examine the needs of the entire userbase, not just
part of it, and accepting the work of one group /carte blanche/ would not
fulfill that requirement. As the evidence grows that there are usergroups,
however small or quiet, who need separate character sets for Phoenician and
Hebrew, your assertion goes from inflammatory to absurd.
P.S. What is "Unicode Biblical Hebrew"? Are you referring to all that
stuff that doesn't yet exist in Unicode?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 18:45:51 CDT