From: Andrew West (andrewcwest@gmail.com)
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 06:17:42 CDT
On 23/05/05, Dean Snyder <dean.snyder@jhu.edu> wrote:
> Nick Nicholas wrote at 1:52 PM on Sunday, May 22, 2005:
>
> >... there is a distinct
> >lack of enthusiasm by a lot of scholars to normalising ancient script
> >glyph repertoires
>
> The operative word is "is". This will not be true in the future.
>
I think that what Nick is saying is that some scholars oppose the
character encoding of ancient scripts as they perceive the process of
encoding as normalizing away significant glyph differences, and thus
encoding may be perceived to be lossy.
I do not subscribe to this point of view, and believe that ancient
scripts can be successfully encoded, and that there is a real
enthusiasm for encoding by a lot of scholars. And as Dean says, once
ancient scripts are encoded then more and more scholars will use the
original script instead of or in addition to transliteration.
For ancient scripts with an open set of characters, for example "Old
Hanzi" ideographs, I would advocate the separate encoding of
*significant* glyph variants, as such variants can be significant for
dating and other purposes, and in lexicographical works there is a
need to have separate entries (in the main text or in the index) for
such variants. To a certain extent the Unicode character-glyph model
needs to be responsive to the needs of the user community, which for
some ancient scripts does genuinely need to differentiate significant
glyph variants.
This is not necessarily the case for all ancient scripts. For Phags-pa
I argued strongly that as the character repertoire is closed and
well-defined, there is no need to separately encode simple glyph
variants. The counter argument put by one scholar was that as Phags-pa
is an historical script it has an almost sacred status, and so
scholars must be able to represent all the idiosyncrasies of the
glyphs of a text in the character encoding. For me, if you need to be
able to represent every minute detail of the glyph forms of a text,
then you would do better to use a facsimile reproduction, as it does
not matter how many glyph variants are encoded, character encoding
will still never achieve this goal.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 24 2005 - 06:18:52 CDT