Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 09:50:17 CDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 implementation.
NO : it means they must behave the same way and that in this case
as Phoenician and Old Hebrew are linguistically sometimes unseparable
and Old Hebrew is even written written in Phoenician that this is useless.
I doubt Vai shares much linguistic or typographical common past with Cree.
>> 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.
Perhaps. Although not having any Phoenician support in common software is
of very limited benefit when the alternative (consider it as an Hebrew font,
which is defensible linguistically and epigraphically) is so obvious.
I think such a proposal, most probably never to be implemented given the above
fact by major companies, is not worth the time it takes to go through the
committees, add the characters to the charts, imagine how it must be sorted,
modify fonts, current databases, etc.
> PleaseOhPlease not again. Read the archives for why Phoenician is
> subject non grata on this forum.
Sorry, I wasn't aware. I will keep quiet on this subject (strange though).
(still waiting for Mr. Michael Everson's answers on the ligated CS and its
missing bar and the apparent unnecessary double KHI RO/CHI RO, please
reply to that messageas the questions are more explicit there, thank you)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 09:51:01 CDT