From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 14:17:28 CDT
> > Unless you want to interchange the data reliably. ISO/IEC 10646 is
> > intended to support data interchange. PHAISTOS SIGN TATTOOED HEAD is
> > what it is, and all sorts of materials may cite it.
> Can data on Austrian road signs be exchanged reliably,
> through some negotiated higher protocol? (Hint: XML entities.) If so,
> then this is no objection to treating Phaistos the same way.
I agree with Nick's argument here.
We need to steer clear of the dangers of assuming that anything
which is text*like* must be encoded as characters and interchanged
in plain text in Unicode.
There is no prima facie case for standardizing characters for
undeciphered scripts (even if they can be demonstrated to actually
be *scripts*). There is no obvious *need* to generate and
transmit plain text involving undeciphered scripts. The main
potential users -- a usually small number of decipherers -- can
use other means to meet their needs.
I just don't see the need to keep beating our tattooed heads against
the wall on Phaistos. There are plenty of well-known scripts
with indubitable claims on needs to standardized character
encoding but still waiting to get proposals or get through the
acceptance and ballotting process. Continuing to obsess on
Phaistos simply because there has been a proposal and because
the repertoire of glyphs is simple and small isn't doing anyone
any favors regarding progression of the scripts which *need*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 23 2005 - 14:18:20 CDT