From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 10:28:09 CDT
On May 20, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Tom Emerson wrote:
> And why not encode the Phaistos script regardless. Is the sheer
> uniqueness that stands in the way of any encoding effort? Comparison
> against thousands of random, accidental, historical Han variants seems
> disingenuous. Why was it rejected back in 1997? The proposal isn't
> even available on the Unicode site any more.
Phaistos wasn't rejected for encoding; it was "not accepted." That
was a minor semantic difference that I insisted on because it didn't
close the door with quite as loud a slam.
The problem with encoding Phaistos is that we just don't know enough
about its repertoire and the identity of the characters to make any
serious encoding, and there's very little need to do it, or at least
that was the reasoning. Personally, I think that if nothing else we
could and should encode it, but I was shot down.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 10:28:52 CDT