RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re: Response to Everson Phoenician)

From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 13:56:06 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re: Response to Everson Phoenician)"

    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
    On Behalf
    > Of Dean Snyder

    > >Can we agree to drop the discussion of Fraktur now?
    >
    > A better way to put this, and the only reason I brought up Fraktur to
    > begin with, is to ask, Can we agree to drop the legibility argument
    for
    > Phoenician? Or at least use it consistent with its use for other
    scripts
    > encoded in Unicode?

    Legibility is *one* consideration. Certainly we must use it consistently
    wrt PH as for other cases. But now that we have established what that
    means (some people find PH used for Hebrew text to be illegible, so
    distinct encoding *may* be warranted), we don't need to refer to Fraktur
    any further to apply it to PH.

    Peter
     
    Peter Constable
    Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
    Microsoft Windows Division



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 13:56:55 CDT