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 - 17:41:37 CDT

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

    > From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk@qaya.org]
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:44 PM

    > Well, what are these technical issues? The only technical issue
    > concerning which there have been "repeated requests", at least since
    the
    > early stages of this thread which I may have forgotten, has been the
    > issue of legibility.

    Legibility has been one technical issue: for (at least some) non-Semitic
    paleographers, text that displayed as square Hebrew characters would
    fail to convey the intended semantics.

    Text-corpus queries are another concern for the same users: they do
    *not* want PH characters folded with Hebrew characters. I realize that
    the Semiticists would like the two folded, but it is not difficult to
    neutralize a distinction in data, whereas it is *very* difficult to
    infer distinctions that do not exist in the data.

    These are at least two technical issues for non-Semiticist paleographers
    that are a significant problem with a unified encoding. In contrast, any
    problems faced by Semiticist paleographers can be handled without
    difficulty if two distinct scripts are encoded.

    I have asked more than once for the pro-unification camp to acknowledge
    and respond to these concerns, and am still waiting to hear even an
    acknowledgement.

    A further consideration is how the needs of users other than
    paleographers can best be served.

    Peter
     
    Peter Constable
    Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
    Microsoft Windows Division



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 17:42:53 CDT