Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

From: Tom Emerson (
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 10:44:20 CDT

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: Stateful encoding mechanisms"

    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                       
      "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