From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 08:54:12 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 06:19 -0500 2005-07-07, email@example.com wrote:
>> This would tend to prove that Phoenician, which I was unaware was
>> to be encoded, is just an archaic form of Hebrew (some ancient
>> Phoenician inscriptions would be hard to separate linguistically from
>> Old Hebrew I take it) and that it isn't really worth any implementer
>> spending time on this script.
> That isn't true. It would tend to prove that you can use Unicode code
> positions for glyphs for things other than what they were intended
> for. I am currently using Canadian Syllabics characters for a Vai
> The larger companies tend to focus on support for living language
> communities as their priority. That does not mean that we shouldn't
> work to encode scripts used by scholars.
PleaseOhPlease not again. Read the archives for why Phoenician is
subject non grata on this forum.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 08:55:14 CDT