Re: Definition of Script etc.

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 18:12:29 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: Definitio "Sn ofcript" etc. (was: Re: Phoenician & Kharos.t.hi- proposals)"

    D. Starner wrote:

    >I’ve heard Japanese so proposed repeatedly.
    Has there ever been a formal proposal to WG2 / UTC?
    (of course we know what the result would be since CJK unification is a
    fundamental part of the standard)

    >I’ve also heard, and agree
    >with, the arguments that IPA is a script in the sense used in iso10646.
    >It’s just not as simple that every script that is seriously proposed
    >should be accepted.
    No, but if a serious and well formed proposal is made it deserves due

    Maybe what Ken wrote

    << 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. It does not correlate directly to a graphologist's or palaeographer's definition (if they have one) of what a script is, nor can it be defined, a priori, axiomatically.
    It comes down to decisions about potential usefulness of separate encoding of certain candidate collections of
    related writing symbols, based on historical identity, technical considerations of how various desired processes
    may interact with the encoding choices, and input from (sometimes competing) interested parties who may or may
    not want a separate encoding for some entity, based on the way they have traditionally interacted with
    materials of relevance. >>

    is the nearest thing we are going to get to a principle applied to such
    proposals - even though he made his post in an unofficial capacity.

    A Phoenician encoding would in no way prevent Semitic scholars from
    continuing to represent the texts they work with using Hebrew
    characters. Since they claim near total unanimity on their desire to use
    Hebrew characters, claims that Phoenician characters will cause them
    substantial difficulty searching and collating texts in essence amount
    to a red herring. After all they are hardly going to use texts encoded
    by those they consider to be amateur script enthusiasts and dilettanti
    as authoritative sources - so when are they going to encounter
    difficulty searching and collating these texts?

    - Chris


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 30 2004 - 18:16:38 CDT