RE: PH technical issues (was RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 09:33:41 CDT

  • Next message: John D. Burger: "Re: base16k - Efficient Binary Data Encoding in Unicode Text"

    > From: Peter Kirk []

    > Well, this does not deal with the scenario which I had in mind, and
    > clearly presented some time ago, in which users are searching the
    > Internet, or some private but extensive collection of texts, for a
    > particular word or phrase, in Hebrew or for that matter Moabite etc or
    > even Phoenician. Currently such a search would need to match Hebrew
    > characters and also a variety of Latin transliterations. (Hopefully
    > time the use of Latin transliterations will fade, or at least become
    > more standardised as transliterators can use real Unicode characters
    > with diacritics and not ad hoc ASCII-based solutions.) But if
    > is separately encoded, and at least some palaeo-Hebrew, Moabite etc
    > texts are represented with the Phoenician characters, searchers will
    > need to search for an additional encoding. For that matter, searchers
    > for texts written with Phoenician glyphs will also be inconvenienced
    > because some such texts will be represented by Hebrew characters. In
    > such a case the user cannot convert all texts to Hebrew characters in
    > advance, the folding must be applied by the search engine.
    > Is this a realistic scenario? Is it one which really requires folding
    > together of Hebrew and Phoenician? What does anyone else think?

    Sure, that's a realistic scenario. But it takes about 1 extra second to
    type abc OR def rather than just abc as the search criteria, and that
    achieves the desired result.

    I don't think the use of Latin transliterations will fade all that

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 29 2004 - 09:36:51 CDT