From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 22 2005 - 05:48:34 CDT
At 17:16 -0600 2005-05-20, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>>Not really. We have a well-defined repertoire and all of the
>>characters have catalogue numbers. We don't know what they *mean*
>>but it is certainly unlikely that any one of them is a glyph
>>variant of any other one of them.
>The problem is that we don't know how it relates to the overall size
>of the script. (Or so ran the rationale against encoding.) It would
>be like encoding A through F and not knowing how many additional
>letters to make room for.
But we do *that* all the time. We are encoding lots of Cuneiform, but
we know there is more. We will do a subset of Egyptian long before we
do anything else. More Phaistos material may turn up one day. But in
the meantime, those 45 characters (and three punctuation marks)
exist, and are used in discussions of the script, the history of
writing, and so on. And they can't be unified with anything else
we've got encoded.
See http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/phaistos.html gives the
repertoire and names.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 22 2005 - 05:57:38 CDT