Re: proposals I wrote (and also, didn't write)

From: E. Keown (
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 21:48:20 CST

  • Next message: E. Keown: "Re: proposals I wrote (and also, didn't write)"

          Elaine Keown

    Dear Philippe and Lists:
    > In all your searches and in your proposals, did you
    > try to segregate the proposed additional characters
    > into two separate categories: those needed
    > for inclusion within many modern studies, and those

    The Samaritan marks are still used *today* by the
    Samaritan communities in Israel and elsewhere.

    The other marks would be considered historical:
    Babylonian hasn't been used since the 1780s, and the
    Palestinian ceased to be used a while before that.

    > I ask you that because not all the Hebrew Extended
    > chracters may need an allocation in the BMP (in row
    > U+08xx as suggested), and some may be placed

    Hebrew code points are already in 2 blocks.

    If the UTC had done any kind of appropriate research
    in the late 1980s, they would have made the main
    Hebrew block larger.

    In the so-called 'deprecated' block, the 2nd Hebrew
    block in the BMP, are composed Hebrew points which I
    plan to go on using. And I expect everyone else to go
    on using them also, all Hebraists. We think they are
    needed for 'text representation' of shin and sin.

    I asked for a 3rd block so there will be fewer core
    blocks for Hebrew--I thought 2 blocks was already a
    lot to have to deal with.

    I don't think it's fair to have Hebrew 'spread all
    over the map.'

    > in the SMP, in a separate Hebrew-Aramaic-Mandaic
    > Extended block (including notably some punctuations
    > signs or old numerals, or

    Is this proposed block from a new version of the
    Roadmap? I haven't read the Roadmap lately.


    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 07 2004 - 11:39:18 CST