RE: [BULK] - Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc

From: Mike Ayers (
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 13:28:46 CDT

  • Next message: D. Starner: "RE: PH technical issues (was RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant"

    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of Peter Kirk
    > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:46 AM

    > Well, it would imply that texts using the same glyphs and in
    > very nearly
    > the same language would be encoded quite differently. Is this
    > confusion
    > desirable?

            No. However, you have stated this alone, which can be misleading,
    as this is part of a set of interlocking ad inextricable problems. The
    question is not whether one problem or the other is desireable, it is which
    solution is the least undesireable.

    > Well, I would say that it is first incumbent on the proposers to
    > demonstrate that their need is real, based on sound technical
    > arguments,
    > or on realistic scenarios where a plain text distinction is
    > necessary.
    > Peter C's Sally and Latisha scenario was the right kind of
    > approach, but
    > failed to demonstrate that the distinction should be in plain text.
    > After all, if the proposers cannot state their requirements, how can
    > others suggest how they can be satisfied?

            Ummm - let me get this right. Some people who are using these
    characters tell us that they need to fundamentally distinguish them from
    Hebrew characters, but that's not a good case. A hypothetical situation,
    however, could convince you? I'm truly baffled.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 13:29:48 CDT