From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 16:47:32 CDT
On 02/06/2004 13:48, Christopher Fynn wrote:
> ...
>
>> <>
>> An analogous statement can be made of any script in Unicode. We can all
>> continue to use code pages or the myriad Hebrew fonts that put the
>> glyphs at
>> Latin-0 code points. If the proposed Phoenician block can be so easily
>> ignored in encoding ancient Canaanite texts, then is the block really
>> needed?
>>
> A Phoenician block is obviously not needed by those who wish to
> represent Phoenician / ancient Canaanite texts with Hebrew
> Characters. It is only needed by those who wish to represent
> Phoenician text with Phoenician characters and Hebrew text with
> Hebrew characters.
>
> - Chris
>
The fallacy in this argument is that there is a difference between a
wish and a need. Some people have said that they wish to represent
Phoenician separately, just as other people have said that they wish to
represent Klingon or Japanese separately, but they have not demonstrated
a need to do so. Peter C's latter scenario, the journal editor, comes
close to demonstrating this, but it does not come (explicitly) from an
actual user. Chris, you need to refer to that scenario or something
similar if you want your argument to be at all convincing.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 16:48:37 CDT