Re: Definitio "Sn ofcript" etc.

From: John Hudson (
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 00:18:47 CDT

  • Next message: Chris Jacobs: "Re: Did the waw in [Dan. v. 8] change?"

    Christopher Fynn wrote:

    > "Script" is already defined in ISO 10646 as: ...

    I was not proposing a new formal definition, I was identifying a *functional* aspect of a
    de facto definition as being distinction in plain text. This should go without saying --
    characters for plain text is what Unicode encodes --, and yet we have arguments about the
    identity of 'scripts' based on criteria (e.g. historical principles and scholarly
    classification, whether supporting or opposing particular proposals) other than
    distinguishability in plain text. And yet we all know that the encoding of Phoenician, for
    example, is eventually going to be determined by the plain text needs or desires of
    specific users. I'm simply encouraging people to think about the Unicode notion of script
    in these terms, as I think it will save us a lot of wasted bandwidth, energy and frustration.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    Currently reading:
    Typespaces, by Peter Burnhill
    White Mughals, by William Dalrymple
    Hebrew manuscripts of the Middle Ages, by Colette Sirat

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 31 2004 - 00:20:28 CDT