Re: FPDAM5: Egyptian hieroglyphs (was Re: Marks)

From: James Kass (
Date: Sat Sep 29 2007 - 21:44:53 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: FPDAM5: Egyptian hieroglyphs (was Re: Marks)"

    Philippe Verdy wrote to Michael Everson,

    >> At 11:34 -0500 2007-09-29, wrote:
    >> >So before this thread is stopped. Who is going to write the proposal
    >> >to encode <><?
    >> See U+1319F in FPDAM5
    >This contradicts your own statement in the N3237 document signed by you for
    >justifying the encoding of the new Egyptian Hieroglyphs block:
    >10a. Can any of the proposed character(s) be considered to be similar (in
    >appearance or function) to an existing character?
    >No. There is no question of unifying Egyptian Hieroglyphs with other scripts
    >or symbols. U+2625 ANKH is not the same character as
    >EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH S034, despite the origin of the former in the latter.

    This isn't really a contradiction at all.

    It should be unacceptable to attempt to unify selected characters
    from a writing system with look-alike symbols (or with similar
    appearing letters from other writing systems) already encoded.

    However, there's nothing wrong with using a pictograph from
    the Egyptian set (or any other set) as a representation of the
    symbolism you are trying to convey.

    In the absence of a devoted character for CHRISTIAN FISH SYMBOL,
    if Christians who currently use the ASCII string "<><" instead adopted
    the hieroglyphic pictogram of a fish as a convention for plain text
    exchange, everyone would still get the idea.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 29 2007 - 21:48:59 CDT