From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sat Dec 27 2003 - 09:23:19 EST
Dean
Thanks for your reply
It seems that you consider encoding characters to handle epigraphic needs
acceptable.
EPIDAURAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL TWO (2 dots) and THESPIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL TWO
(crooked line) seem to have the same underlying meaning - and I don't see any
semantic difference between U+10143 ATTIC ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIVE and U+1015F
TROEZENIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIVE or between the characters 10144 ATTIC
ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY, U+10166 TROEZENIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY TYPE ONE ,
U+10167
TROEZENIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY TYPE TWO and U+10168 HERMIONIAN
ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY so these can only be there for epigraphic needs.
So, the difference between epigraphic needs and palaeographic needs is where
you seem to be drawing the line between what is acceptable to encode and what
is not
Both seem to be a matter of shape.- but one is a mater of different shapes and
the other variations of a single shape
regards
- Chris
"Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
> Christopher John Fynn wrote at 12:53 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:
>
> >Dean Snyder wrote:
> >
> >> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support,
> >> in plain text, for the needs of paleographers?
> >
> >What would you call these
> >http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2612/n2612-3.pdf ?
>
> Characters useful for epigraphers, not paleographers.
>
> The Greek acrophonic characters accepted into Unicode are exactly that,
> characters - useful in epigraphy but worthless for paleography, because
> they do not encode multiple glyphic variants of the same character.
> Compare, for example, "Epidaurean Acrophonic Symbol Two" which is 2 dots
> versus "Thespian Acrophonic Symbol Two" which is a crooked line. What
> would serve the needs of paleographers would be the encoding of all the
> glyphic variants of the "Thespian Acrophonic Symbol Two". Unicode will
> not encode that, nor should it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 27 2003 - 12:04:22 EST