From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:08:31 CDT
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Of email@example.com
> NO : it means they must behave the same way and that in this case
> as Phoenician and Old Hebrew are linguistically sometimes unseparable
> and Old Hebrew is even written written in Phoenician that this is
The fact that old Turkish is written in Arabic while recent Turkish is
written in Latin has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Arabic and
Latin should be encoded with the same or different characters.
> >> The larger companies tend to focus on support for living language
> > > communities as their priority. That does not mean that we
> > > shouldn't work to encode scripts used by scholars.
> Perhaps. Although not having any Phoenician support in common software
> of very limited benefit when the alternative (consider it as an Hebrew
> which is defensible linguistically and epigraphically) is so obvious.
> I think such a proposal, most probably never to be implemented given
> fact by major companies, is not worth the time it takes to go through
> committees, add the characters to the charts, imagine how it must be
> modify fonts, current databases, etc.
You should not be making generic assumptions about what software vendors
will do, let alone draw conclusions about what is or isn't worth UTC
doing based on those assumptions.
Also, note that some issues, such as default sorting, may need to be
considered by a major software vendor regardless of what other plans
they may have to support a script.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:09:16 CDT