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

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 13:26:33 CDT

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Unidentified lettering"

    > From: []
    > Behalf Of Dean Snyder

    > Kenneth Whistler wrote at 5:41 PM on Friday, May 28, 2004:
    > >the question of
    > >what is a script distinction, what it comes down to in
    > >the Unicode Standard is that a script distinction is a
    > >distinct encoding of a script, neither more nor less.
    > Then you cannot, as many have, use the argument that you want to
    > Phoenician because it is a different script - that is circular
    > - it's a different script because it will be if encoded.

    If there is consensus that something is an ontologically-distinct script
    (i.e. we're talking about the thing in the real world, not things in the
    model comprised by our encoding), then I think it's likely we would
    create a distinct script in our encoding. We generally don't end up
    debating these issues because everybody acknowledges a distinction.
    Here, the ontological and encoding-model notions of "script" coincide.

    But if there isn't consensus about the ontological distinctness, we may
    or may not encode a distinct script, and the ontological and
    encoding-model notions of script may or may not coincide. In these
    cases, we decide whether to encode based on the anticipated needs of
    users overall, taking into consideration a variety of factors.

    Regarding which, you have not yet commented, Dean, on the technical
    issues and usage scenarios I've mentioned in relation to users other
    than Semitic paleographers. I'm curious to know what comments you might

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 29 2004 - 13:28:53 CDT