Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 21:32:40 CDT

  • Next message: Ernest Cline: "Re: Proposal to encode dominoes and other game symbols"

    Peter Kirk wrote:

    > On 25/05/2004 12:14, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    >> The technical solution for that is:
    >> A. Encode Phoenician as a separate script. (That accomplishes the
    >> second task, of making a plain text distinction possible.)
    >> B. Asserting in the *documentation* that there is a well-known
    >> one-to-one equivalence relationship between the letters of
    >> this (and other 22CWSA) and Hebrew letters -- including the
    >> publication of the mapping tables as proof of concept.
    > No, this doesn't go far enough, even for me so almost certainly not
    > for others. This is accepting the splitters' case and throwing in a
    > footnote in the hope of satisfying the joiners. I would think that the
    > least that would be acceptable is default interleaved collation.
    If you ask Ken & the UTC nicely I should think a "linguistic
    relationship" between each letter and the corresponding Hebrew letter
    might be indicated in the name list immediately following the code
    chart (as is done with 0F9D -> 094D). The relationship between the
    letters of the two scripts could probably also be explicitly stated in
    the block intro for this script (and maybe in the block intro for Hebrew
    as well). If the one to one correspondence is explicitly stated in
    the block intro this is a lot more than "throwing in a footnote".

    Interleaved collation can be achieved by creating a tailored collation
    table - it is not necessary in the default collation, and *not*
    difficult to do this..
    Similarly you could create a tailored table for "folding".

    - Chris

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 21:37:01 CDT