From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Apr 04 2006 - 11:34:39 CST
My only question is: I had thought that the Phaistos disk was
undeciphered. With undeciphered scripts, we can't say that "the set of
characters is stable", since we don't know which glyphs represent
variants of the same characters.
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 11:18 -0800 2006-04-01, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>> Perhaps most importantly, should I be worried that you posted this
>>> on April 1? :-)
>> I thought he was joking last year when he proposed INVERTED
>> INTERROBANG, in a proposal form with "2005-04-01" sprinkled all over
>> the place -- in bold even -- but it's been approved by UTC.
> John Jenkins and I are serious, though we chose to present an
> enjoyable proposal on an enjoyable day.
> I believe that the proposal is sound.
> * The set of characters is stable.
> * There's been two PUA implementations and at least two non-UCS font
> implemenations (one commercial!) available for a number of years.
> * There is a growing body of literature about this script, on its own
> and in comparison with other scripts, and this shows no signs of abating.
> * it is required for scholarly as well as non-scholarly use
> * using in-line images (as in the Wikipedia article) is inconvenient
> and unsearchable
> * using the PUA is not a good solution as the characters aren't
> standardized and Google for instance ignores PUA characters
> * there is plenty of space available in the SMP
> * encoding is required so that users can process Phasistos characters
> in a uniform and consistent manner (e.g. for web searches)
> * the Phaistos Disc characters are used at least as much as most of
> the 40,000+ CJK-B characters
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 04 2006 - 11:40:42 CST