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

From: Rick McGowan (
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 15:25:02 CDT

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

    Personally speaking, at this juncture, I usually yawn and hit the delete
    button when I see the word "Phoenician" on this list. The discussion has
    gone way past any sane argument.

    However, Peter Kirk asked a question to which I have a response.

    > ... 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?

    Do you even have to ask this question? If so, I have to think you haven't
    been listening at all. There are technical justifications for the encoding,
    but you are either failing to listen to them, or are refusing to believe
    that some of the justifications are technical. I will not repeat any
    arguments here, I've really had enough Phoenician.

    It's my personal opinion that yes, UTC *should* encode Phoenician
    precisely because there is a group of scholars and others who have
    indicated they desire its encoding and would use it, and there *are*
    technical justifications which appeal to those Phoenician proponents, even
    if you won't acknowledge them as such. It's apparent that one reason you
    won't acknowledge any technical issues is that you disagree on first
    principles and refuse to acknowledge any other needs or viewpoints than
    your own.

    As far as I'm concerned, that's about the end of the discussion.

    Personally speaking only, and not any official policy, and not speaking
    for any UTC member, etc,


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 15:25:36 CDT