At 13:12 -0700 2003-08-07, Peter Kirk wrote:
Well, it seems to me that in the case of the Aramaic proposal we
don't even have that. We have an archaic version of the script which
is now used mainly for Hebrew, and which many scholars still call
Aramaic (in distinction from paleo-Hebrew)
Also cursive Hebrew and Rashi. See attached samples.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:24 AM
To: Karljrgen Feuerherm
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Colourful scripts
On 07/08/2003 13:00, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Is it a principle of Unicode that a new script should not be encoded
because it is one to one correspondence with an existing one, even
though there is no graphical relationship? Well, that is certainly in
conflict with Michael's
At 18:03 -0400 2003-08-07, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
My knowledge of Aramaic script is a little scanty, but my understanding is
more or less the same as Peter's. Which leads me
to suggest that encoding Aramaic separately
would be a bit like encoding Old Akkadian
(Cuneiform) separately from
Madison WI
Hello:
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf before deciding what
it is that is meant by Aramaic in the Roadmap? Note that Hebrew
descends FROM it, and that as do number of other scripts which clearly
do NOT descend from Hebrew.
First, I think the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Colourful scripts and Aramaic
On 07/08/2003 13:00, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Is it a principle of Unicode that a new script should not be encoded
On 07/08/2003 15:24, Michael Everson wrote:
At 18:03 -0400 2003-08-07, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
My knowledge of Aramaic script is a little scanty, but my
understanding is
more or less the same as Peter's. Which leads me to suggest that
encoding Aramaic separately would be a bit like
7 matches
Mail list logo
