From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 13:26:33 CDT
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Kenneth Whistler wrote at 5:41 PM on Friday, May 28, 2004:
>
> >the question of
> >what is a script distinction, what it comes down to in
> >the Unicode Standard is that a script distinction is a
> >distinct encoding of a script, neither more nor less.
>
> Then you cannot, as many have, use the argument that you want to
encode
> Phoenician because it is a different script - that is circular
reasoning
> - it's a different script because it will be if encoded.
If there is consensus that something is an ontologically-distinct script
(i.e. we're talking about the thing in the real world, not things in the
model comprised by our encoding), then I think it's likely we would
create a distinct script in our encoding. We generally don't end up
debating these issues because everybody acknowledges a distinction.
Here, the ontological and encoding-model notions of "script" coincide.
But if there isn't consensus about the ontological distinctness, we may
or may not encode a distinct script, and the ontological and
encoding-model notions of script may or may not coincide. In these
cases, we decide whether to encode based on the anticipated needs of
users overall, taking into consideration a variety of factors.
Regarding which, you have not yet commented, Dean, on the technical
issues and usage scenarios I've mentioned in relation to users other
than Semitic paleographers. I'm curious to know what comments you might
have.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 29 2004 - 13:28:53 CDT