Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 16:59:21 CST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646"

    On 30/11/2004 22:22, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    > From: "Peter Kirk" <>
    >> On 30/11/2004 19:53, John Cowan wrote:
    >>> Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a
    >>> democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote. ...
    >> Thank you, John. This was in fact my question: will the amendment be
    >> passed automatically if there is a majority in favour, or does it go
    >> back for further discussion until a consensus is reached? You have
    >> clarified that the latter is true. And I am glad to hear it.
    > Probably, the WG2 will now consider alternatives to examine how
    > Phoenician can be represented. The current proposal may be voted "no"
    > for other reasons that just a formal opposition against the idea of
    > encoding it as a separate script, possibly because the proposal is
    > still incomplete, or does not resolve significant issues, or does not
    > help making Phoenician texts better worked with computers...

    Philippe, there is no need to speculate about reasons for rejection,
    because they are clearly stated in

    > ...
    > So may be it's too soon to encode Phoenician now, given that its
    > immediate successors are still not encoded, and a formal model for
    > them is still missing.
    Thank you for at least this sensible comment. But I don't see much
    mileage in taking Phoenician as a variant of Greek.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 17:09:21 CST