From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 15:08:12 CDT
On 26/05/2004 11:56, Peter Constable wrote:
>>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.
>
>
>
>
If we can all agree that legibility is not a sufficient criterion on its
own for encoding Phoenician and Palaeo-Hebrew separately, then let's
indeed move on and see if there are any other technical arguments for
separate encoding. I don't remember seeing any. This seems to suggest to
me that there is no technical justification for the proposal. Can we
agree on that?
If so, we need to ask a more general question: should the UTC encode
scripts for which there is a (small, in this case) demand but no
technical justification?
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 15:09:21 CDT