Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 10:53:30 CST
I don't mean handwriting styles.
I mean something like there might be a clear visual difference between
Sumerian cuneiform of 3000 B.C. and Hittite cuneiform of 1500 B.C.[*] -- but
they don't have separate characterhoods.
And there may be a giant library of tablets in the Sumerian local script
variation, and a giant library of tablets in the Hittite local script variation.
And it seems optimal to me to read the Hittite library in a *standardized
local Hittite variant* of the cuneiform script, rather than in the Sumerian
local script variant..
Just as it's optimal to display Serbian in the Serbian local variant of
Cyrillic script, and not the Russian variant.
[*] I don't know that this is so.
Peter Constable wrote:
> Let's establish some expectations here. I have been giving you general
> information on things that are possible using Unicode or advanced font
> technologies, including the use of OpenType Language-System tags. Do not
> expect either Unicode or OpenType to be revised to support electronic
> textual representation of facsimiles of paleographic documents. Some
> things may be done to assist paleographers in their work, such as
> encoding new characters or scripts, defining some VS sequences or
> registering some new OT Language-System tags, but only within limits,
> and certainly not in response to an individual request.
> > > Besides, NO ONE can do paleography using computer fonts;
> Certainly not using only computer (or non-digital) fonts.
> Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 10:40:54 CST