From: Tom Emerson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 10:44:20 CDT
John H. Jenkins writes:
> 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.
Ah, yes, I see the distinction now. But for all intents and purposes
it's probably dead.
> The problem with encoding Phaistos is that we just don't know enough
> about its repertoire
Well, for the time being we have the full and extant repertoire
available on the artifact itself.
> and the identity of the characters to make any serious encoding,
Phaistos Ideogram 1
Phaistos Ideogram 2
Certainly no worse than LINEAR B IDEOGRAM B107M HE-GOAT
> and there's very little need to do it, or at least that was the reasoning.
And Ogham and Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform has a huge community just
itching to use them? In light of the recent desires to encode the
worlds scripts, "very little need" is specious.
I expect it is more in line with "We have more important things to do."
> Personally, I think that if nothing else we could and should encode
> it, but I was shot down.
And that rationale for not encoding it is what I'm interested in seeing.
-- Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp. Software Architect http://www.basistech.com "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you suck forever"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 10:45:59 CDT