From: Andrew C. West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 08 2005 - 06:44:56 CST
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:35:07 -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> What would be a nice first step, rather than these kinds of e-mail
> brain storms, would be a serious, coordinated effort by leading paleographers
> to come to an agreement as to precisely what kind of information needs
> to be preserved, and for what scripts or paleographic sub-discipline
> it would be sufficient.
It would be nice wouldn't it. But where do all these palaeographers hang out I
wonder ? Few people would describe themselves as palaeographers as such, and I
suspect that most of those that do (i.e. those people who are purely interested
in the history and evolution of script forms) are not that interested in
Unicode. The people who would benefit from a mechanism in Unicode to represent
textual damage come from a wide variety of disciplines (history, linguistics,
literarature, etc.), but they share a common desire to be able to represent the
precise state of a text.
Maybe Unicode could set up a mailing list/working group for people such as Dean
and myself who are interested in such things, to come up with a coordinated
proposal ... but unfortunately such groups have a pretty poor record of success.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 08 2005 - 06:46:35 CST