Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 09:10:53 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "[OT] My mail setup"

    On 23/12/2003 04:59, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 04:30 -0800 2003-12-23, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >
    >> As the subject line here is still about Aramaic, I shall remind you
    >> all that that script is a good example of a script which has been
    >> roadmapped for the BMP as a misunderstanding.
    >
    >
    > I am aware that this is your opinion, Peter.
    >
    If so you must have second sight, because I have not stated this point
    before, which is that the place for Aramaic, if encoded at all, is on
    the SMP together with other extinct scripts.

    >> If there is such a script at all distinct from the Hebrew script, it
    >> is one which died out, and was replaced by other encoded or
    >> roadmapped scripts, more than 2000 years ago.
    >
    >
    > Just for the sake of argument, and not with particular reference to
    > the scripts currently under discussion, it is acceptable to us to
    > encode extinct scripts even when some scholars prefer to use something
    > else. Gothic is one such example.
    >
    But extinct scripts should be encoded on the SMP, according to the rules
    in e.g. TUS 4.0 section 2.8. Gothic is an example of that. If Aramaic is
    encoded, it should be another example.

    >> So this is a case where the original decisions of the Roadmap
    >> Committee need reviewing.
    >
    >
    > You have stated this already.
    >
    No, I have not. I have never mentioned before the decision to put
    Aramaic on the BMP rather than the SMP. As Aramaic is a historic script
    (if it is a script at all) and not a modern one, according to the
    regular guidelines it should be in the SMP.

    >> That decision was based on N2311 which, as James points out, notes
    >> twice that "Further research is required".
    >
    >
    > Gosh. And I'm the one who wrote that. Isn't that something?
    >
    >> The UTC should make sure that such research has been done properly,
    >> and not allow provisional decisions taken on the basis of incomplete
    >> research to become standardised by default.
    >
    >
    > Don't be ridiculous. Nothing gets standardized by default.
    >
    It was you, Michael, who wrote:

    > When I fill out the proposal summary form, I do NOT bother to rehash
    > all the reasons why we decided to put something on the BMP or the SMP.

    That implies that you expect the UTC to accept those reasons without
    further questioning, without even any documentation explaining the
    earlier decision, and without checking whether, even according to that
    documentation, "Further research is required". That was my meaning.

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 09:53:47 EST