From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 16:59:21 CST
On 30/11/2004 22:22, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Peter Kirk" <email@example.com>
>> On 30/11/2004 19:53, John Cowan wrote:
>>> Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a
>>> democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote. ...
>> Thank you, John. This was in fact my question: will the amendment be
>> passed automatically if there is a majority in favour, or does it go
>> back for further discussion until a consensus is reached? You have
>> clarified that the latter is true. And I am glad to hear it.
> Probably, the WG2 will now consider alternatives to examine how
> Phoenician can be represented. The current proposal may be voted "no"
> for other reasons that just a formal opposition against the idea of
> encoding it as a separate script, possibly because the proposal is
> still incomplete, or does not resolve significant issues, or does not
> help making Phoenician texts better worked with computers...
Philippe, there is no need to speculate about reasons for rejection,
because they are clearly stated in
> So may be it's too soon to encode Phoenician now, given that its
> immediate successors are still not encoded, and a formal model for
> them is still missing.
Thank you for at least this sensible comment. But I don't see much
mileage in taking Phoenician as a variant of Greek.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 17:09:21 CST