Michael Everson wrote:
A new contribution.
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
N2755
Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Michael Everson Mark Shoulson
Nice.
8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation
form of an existing character or character
Michael Everson wrote:
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no Hebrew
reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it is
completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician font
and have anyone recognize it at all.
But no one is going to do
Michael Everson wrote:
This is no different from Welsh:
A B C CH D DD E F FF G NG
All of those are considered letters in the Welsh alphabet. They are
all significant. But that doesn't mean that ch and dd get encoded
as single entities. They write c + h and d + d.
In Yoruba, you treat gb as
Michael Everson wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
And a baroque set of additional marks and signs, none of which apply to
any of the Phoenician letterforms, EVER, in the history of typography,
reading, and literature.
And a baroque set of additional
Michael Everson wrote:
If you people, after all of this discussion, can think that it is
possible to print a newspaper article in Hebrew language or Yiddish in
Phoenician letters, then all I can say is that understanding of the
fundamentals of script identity is at an all-time low. I'm really
Mark Davis wrote:
The question for me is whether the scholarly representations of the Phoenician
would vary enough that in order to represent the palo-Hebrew (or the other
language/period variants), one would need to have font difference anyway. If so,
then it doesn't buy much to encode separately
On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:14:29 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
jameskass at att dot net wrote:
The BabelPad editor can easily convert between UTF-8 and NCRs...
As can SC UniPad.
For $199 (unless you're only interested in editing files up to 1,000 characters
in length).
Andrew
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I thought about missing African letters like barred-R, barred-W, etc... with
combining overlay diacritics (whose usage has been strongly discouraged
within
Unicode).
May be a font could handle theses combinations gracefully with
[Earlier posting lost, it seems.]
James Kass writes:
The lack of support for supplementary characters expressed in UTF-8
in the Internet Explorer is a bug. As Philippe Verdy mentions, the
Mozilla browser does not have this same bug. Also it should be
noted that the Opera browser handles
From: Dean Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Andries wrote at 8:55 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
I got this answer from a forum dedicated to Ancient Hebrew :
« Very few people can read let alone recognize the paleo Hebrew font.
Most modern Hebrew readers are not even aware that Hebrew was once
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A new contribution.
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
N2755
Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Michael Everson Mark Shoulson
I note that your document uses inconsistently two different code points: it
proposes the
[Original Message]
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A new contribution.
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
N2755
Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Michael Everson Mark Shoulson
Given the description in the proposal which indicates that
this
Dean Snyder a écrit :
Patrick Andries wrote at 8:55 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
I got this answer from a forum dedicated to Ancient Hebrew :
« Very few people can read let alone recognize the paleo Hebrew font.
Most modern Hebrew readers are not even aware that Hebrew was once
written in the
At this time there are about 160 different character properties defined
in the UCD. In practice most applications probably only use a limited set
of properties to work with. Nevertheless applications should be able to
lookup all the properties of a code point. Compiling-in lookup tables for
all
03/05/2004 05:19, Michael Everson wrote:
Suetterlin.
Oh shut UP about Sütterlin already. I don't know where you guys come
up with this stuff. Sütterlin is a kind of stylized handwriting based on
Fraktur letterforms and ductus. It is hard to read. It is not hard to
learn, ...
Since when is
At 23:08 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Those objections are quite generic and could be made just as well
for N'ko, Ol Cemet', Egyptian Hieroglyphics, c.
But there is no clear-cut alternative for any of those. N'ko encoding
is font-kludge, Unicode, or nothing.
At 03:01 + 2004-05-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Cowan wrote,
(And to the last, I'd be tempted to add: If so, what on Earth could those
objections be?)
Expense. Complication. Delays while the encoding gets into the Standard
and thence into popular operating systems, with all the
At 00:19 -0400 2004-05-04, Ernest Cline wrote:
It would seem to me that it would be appropriate that this new
character's canonical combining class should either be the same as
that of QAMATS which is 18
That is correct. We overlooked the properties line in the proposal,
the template for which
At 20:37 -0800 2004-05-03, D. Starner wrote:
Again, change Hebrew to Latin and palaeo-Hebrew to Fraktur and see
how many objections you get.
I should think far fewer; the legibility quotient is much different.
I have said before:
Set a German or Danish or Icelandic wedding invitation in Fraktur.
At 11:42 -0700 2004-05-03, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
And a baroque set of additional marks and signs, none of which
apply to any of the Phoenician letterforms, EVER, in the history of
typography, reading,
A possible question to ask which is blatantly leading would be:
Would you have any objections if your bibliographic database
application suddenly began displaying all of your Hebrew
book titles using the palaeo-Hebrew script rather than
the modern Hebrew
At 12:13 -0700 2004-05-03, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it
is completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a
Phoenician font and have anyone
At 11:53 +1000 2004-05-01, Nick Nicholas wrote:
Coptic could have stayed unified with Greek,
Certainly not!
and myself I'm still not convinced the distinction between Greek and
Coptic in bilingual editions is not truly just a font issue.
Plain-text searching of Crum's dictionary, for instance, is
Raymond Mercier wrote,
BabelPad is great, but it chokes in converting all the UTF8 in unihan.txt to
NCR at one
go. I wrote a dedicated program to do that.
Options - Advanced Options - (Edit Options) -
Make sure the box for Enable Undo/Redo is not checked.
Yes, when the commas in UNIHAN.TXT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John Hudson
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew
reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it is
completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician
font
and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Francois Yergeau
Suppose I were to float a proposal to encode Old Latin, consisting of
the
original 23-letter unicameral alphabet. Try this on for size:
It is false to suggest that
fully-[accented, cased Vietnamese] text
Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02/05/2004 11:57, Deborah W. Anderson wrote:
As one coming from the world of ancient Indo-European (IE) and as editor of
a journal on IE out of UCLA, I am in support of the Phoenician proposal.
Thank you, Deborah. You have given what is to me a much
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C J Fynn cfynn at gmx dot net wrote:
Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly, but what is the distinction between downloading/
distributing a font or downloading/ditributing a XML file containing
the PUA conventions?
One file not two -
John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While the fact that it's called Phoenician script doesn't prove anything
about its origin, it might be considered indicative of the path through
which the script was borrowed.
Indeed. This is the point I made earlier:
What are the directional properties of Pheonician? Is it RTL only, or
was it ever written with a different directionality?
Peter Constable
Peter Constable wrote:
the Old Latin doesn't have the accents, but if you
used the 23
uni-cameral characters for Vietnamese text, then surely a Vietnamese
speaker would recognize it as caseless Vietnamese with the accents
stripped off.
...
So, while Michael's argument was flawed in the way
Peter Constable scripsit:
2) the characters in question are structurally / behaviourally very
similar to square Hebrew characters, but not to the characters of other
scripts
Not just very similar: structurally, behaviorally, and even phonemically
identical.
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is
Peter Constable scripsit:
What are the directional properties of Pheonician? Is it RTL only, or
was it ever written with a different directionality?
It's RTL only, except to the extent that you consider Archaic Greek a
script variant of Phoenician. :-)
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
A problem, however, is that many such forms are found in unstable
orthographies, and are difficult to document adequately for inclusion
in proposals.
This last argument should not be a limitation to encode them. After
all they are
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's flawed. Sure, recognizability makes it
non-equivalent to the Phoenician-Hebrew case, but it still
demonstrates
that
a subset-superset relationship between purported scripts A and B does
not
make them distinct.
Whatever the logic in the examples, I certainly agree
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is just wrong. Item 2 is probably true.
But
is it enough to refer to square Hebrew as the modern form of
Phoenician (Old Canaanite, whatever you want to call it)?
Well, one of the two modern forms, Samaritan being the other.
Ah, so the next protracted debate
At 07:34 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Constable wrote:
05BA;HEBREW POINT QAMATS QATAN;Mn;18;NSM;N;;*;;;
Well, of course, the effect of this is that a sequence of qamats,
qamats qatan is not canonically equivalent to qamats qatan, qamats
. No harm in that, but also not especially useful, I
Philippe Verdy wrote:
A problem, however, is that many such forms are found in unstable
orthographies, and are difficult to document adequately for inclusion in
proposals.
This last argument should not be a limitation to encode them. After all they are
used for living languages in danger of
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The danger of encoding novel characters on speculation that they might
be useful is that if they *don't* turn out to be useful, or if a revised
version of the orthography replaces them with something else, Unicode
and 10646 are stuck with unwanted characters,
Michael Everson wrote:
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it
is completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician
font and have anyone recognize it at all.
But no one is going to do
Mark Shoulsons says that since QAMATS QATAN is a flavour of QAMATS,
it should behave like QAMATS.
True, but giving it the same fixed-position class actually creates a
distinction, though not a particularly significant one.
Regarding canonical equivalence, having
both QAMATS and QAMATS QATAN
OK, I don't care whether it is 18 or 220, and I am not qualified to
decide. You and Mark (and whoever else cares) can duke this one out.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Hullo,
I'll claim the immunity of the ill-informed in contributing this but...
On 4 May 2004, at 17:04, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
No, it is not. If Phoenician letterforms are just a font variant of
Square Hebrew then it is reasonable to assume that readers of Square
Hebrew will
On 03/05/2004 11:47, Patrick Andries wrote:
Peter Kirk a écrit :
On 03/05/2004 05:55, Patrick Andries wrote:
...
When the Biblical text is written in paleo Hebrew there are no vowel
pointings. When the text was written in the paleo Hebrew four of the
Hebrew letters were used as vowels - aleph,
On 02/05/2004 16:26, Michael Everson wrote:
At 11:06 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
Michael Everson, who knows so little Phoenician that he doesn't know
how similar it is to Hebrew?
You are confusing language and script. I am not encoding the
Phoenician language. ...
No, I am not, despite
Christian Cooke wrote:
Surely a cipher is by definition after the event, i.e. there must be
the parent script before the child. Does it not follow that, by John's
reasoning, if one is no more than a cipher of the other then it is
Hebrew that is the cipher and so the only way Phoenician and
On 02/05/2004 16:28, Michael Everson wrote:
...
Common sense says that you should not use the Hebrew block for
Phoenician script with a masquerading font, since the Hebrew script
and the Phoenician script are different scripts.
OK, I get the point. Unicode doesn't tell anyone what to do, but
On 02/05/2004 14:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The Meshe Stele and the inscription of Edessa were originally written
in the same script. If encoding the Edessa inscription using the
Hebrew range would be transliteration, then so would the encoding
of the Meshe Stele in the Hebrew range.
And
On 03/05/2004 19:04, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:41 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
If your support had been cited in the original proposal with your
arguments, rather a lot of spilled electrons could have been saved.
Well, I guess it is not too late to include them in a revised proposal.
On 03/05/2004 19:03, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:25 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
It is not possible to take an encoded Genesis text which is pointed
and cantillated, and blithly change the font to Moabite or Punic and
expect anyone to even recognize it as Hebrew.
Michael, you assert
On 02/05/2004 17:35, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Please be polite Peter. You're talking to the official registrar appointed by
Unicode, the ISO 15924 Registration Agency.
Well, Michael is only the registrar. ISO 15924 will continue to have more
details about what is considered as a separate script
On 02/05/2004 20:33, John Cowan wrote:
Ernest Cline scripsit:
Defining Europe is vague.
Well, Michael Everson back in 1995 defined it thus:
Europe extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including
Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastwards to the
Mediterranean
On 03/05/2004 05:19, Michael Everson wrote:
...
Suetterlin.
Oh shut UP about Sütterlin already. I don't know where you guys come
up with this stuff. Sütterlin is a kind of stylized handwriting based
on Fraktur letterforms and ductus. It is hard to read. It is not hard
to learn, ...
Nor is
On 03/05/2004 05:55, Patrick Andries wrote:
...
When the Biblical text is written in paleo Hebrew there are no vowel
pointings. When the text was written in the paleo Hebrew four of the
Hebrew letters were used as vowels - aleph, hey, vav and yud, but were
removed from the text when the
On 03/05/2004 18:40, Rick McGowan wrote:
The Unicode.ORG server move has gone more or less according to plan, and
mail lists have been turned back on. Thank you for your patience.
During the next few weeks, if you notice any service on Unicode.ORG that
previously worked but is now broken, or
On 04/05/2004 06:10, Michael Everson wrote:
...
and myself I'm still not convinced the distinction between Greek and
Coptic in bilingual editions is not truly just a font issue.
Plain-text searching of Crum's dictionary, for instance, is a
perfectly valid requirement, and one which was brought
On 02/05/2004 16:48, Michael Everson wrote:
...
It is not possible to take an encoded Genesis text which is pointed
and cantillated, and blithly change the font to Moabite or Punic and
expect anyone to even recognize it as Hebrew.
Michael, you assert this, but do you actually know it to be
On 03/05/2004 15:33, Simon Montagu wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 02/05/2004 05:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting from the jewfaq page,
The example of pointed text above uses Snuit's Web Hebrew AD font.
These Hebrew fonts map to ASCII 224-250, high ASCII characters which
are not normally
On 04/05/2004 08:58, Peter Constable wrote:
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is just wrong. Item 2 is probably true.
But
is it enough to refer to square Hebrew as the modern form of
Phoenician (Old Canaanite, whatever you want to call it)?
Well, one of the two modern forms, Samaritan
On 03/05/2004 06:47, Michael Everson wrote:
...
And frankly, I don't consider that Snyder or Kirk or Cowan speak for
the Semiticist community as they would have us think.
I admit freely that I don't. And I don't consider that Everson speaks
for the Phoenician script user community as it seems he
Peter Kirk a écrit :
On 03/05/2004 05:55, Patrick Andries wrote:
Quoted...
...
When the Biblical text is written in paleo Hebrew there are no vowel
pointings. When the text was written in the paleo Hebrew four of the
Hebrew letters were used as vowels - aleph, hey, vav and yud, but
were removed
On 04/05/2004 06:44, Peter Constable wrote:
...
But if you took Biblical Hebrew text and set it with PH glyphs w/o
accents, there are a lot of people that know Biblical Hebrew who would
not recognize this sample as Biblical Hebrew. ...
Well, Peter, that's not the point. A lot of Vietnamese people
At 09:43 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
Mark Shoulson did a test today with a group of well-educated young
Hebrew-speaking computer programmers. They did not recognize it.
Thanks for the data. These are I suppose American Jews. A fairer
test might be among Israeli native speakers of Hebrew.
If a can have U+0061 and have a composite that is U+00e2...U+...
If e can have U+0065 and have a composite that is U+00ea...U+...
Then why is e with accented grave or acute and dot below cannot be assigned
a single unicode value instead of the combinational values 1EB9 0301 and
etc
Since
At 09:47 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:04, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:41 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
If your support had been cited in the original proposal with your
arguments, rather a lot of spilled electrons could have been
saved. Well, I guess it is not too
At 10:00 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
and myself I'm still not convinced the distinction between Greek
and Coptic in bilingual editions is not truly just a font issue.
Plain-text searching of Crum's dictionary, for instance, is a
perfectly valid requirement, and one which was brought to
How do you distinguish those scripts that are rejected as 'ciphers'
of other scripts from those which you want to encode, if 1:1 correspondence
is not sufficient grounds for unification but visual dissimilarity
is grounds for disunification?
As far as I can follow Michaels arguments he says
Christian Cooke a écrit :
Surely a cipher is by definition after the event, i.e. there must be
the parent script before the child. Does it not follow that, by John's
reasoning, if one is no more than a cipher of the other then it is
Hebrew that is the cipher and so the only way Phoenician and
At 15:16 -0400 2004-05-04, Patrick Andries wrote:
Christian Cooke a écrit :
Surely a cipher is by definition after the
event, i.e. there must be the parent script
before the child. Does it not follow that, by
John's reasoning, if one is no more than a
cipher of the other then it is Hebrew that
Since Peter Kirk wrote, on the Unicode list, I'll CC the list.
Peter Kirk wrote:
I sent several messages to the list between 16:20 and 16:30 GMT
which were simply lost.
You are wrong. They were not lost -- at least not on this server. Check
the archives. (OK, I've had some config trouble
Actually, I had already seen all of the messages you resent, Peter, so they
apparently did get through the first time. It may well be that something
happened to delay them getting thru to you. Some other threads have
appeared disjointed to me tho, so there do appear to be real problems,
or else
Michael Everson scripsit:
Well. Depends what you mean by forms. Our taxonomy currently lists
Samaritan, Square Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Mandaic as modern (RTL)
forms of the parent Phoenician.
Arabic and Syriac have very specialized shaping behavior which makes them
obviously distinct
[Original Message]
From: African Oracle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5/4/2004 7:04:48 PM
Subject: Just if and where is the then?
If a can have U+0061 and have a composite that is U+00e2...U+...
If e can have U+0065 and have a composite that is U+00ea...U+...
Then why
I want to point out that the inclusion of a name in N2311 does not mean a
*guaranteed* place in Unicode for it. All it means is that according to our best
current information, we're trying to reserve space for what we think will be
there. But until we get and assess actual concrete proposals, we
Michael Everson wrote at 7:21 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
No, Proto-Sinaitic is out, actually, though it's still in the Summary
Form by accident.
For similar reasons, Proto-Canaanite should be out.
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Patrick Andries wrote at 6:53 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
So there were Dead Sea Scrolls written in Square Hebrew with matres
lectionis ? (I don't know, I just would like to know.)
Yes; and with final forms of the usual letters.
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
At 10:09 +0200 2004-05-05, Simon Montagu wrote:
Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Michael Everson Mark Shoulson
Nice.
Ta.
8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation
form of an existing character or character sequence?
No.
Is this overstating the case?
Patrick Andries a écrit :
Christian Cooke a écrit :
Surely a cipher is by definition after the event, i.e. there must
be the parent script before the child. Does it not follow that, by
John's reasoning, if one is no more than a cipher of the other then
it is Hebrew that is the cipher and so the
The existing composites were included only out of necessity so that new
Unicode implementations could interoperate with existing implementations
using legacy industry-standard encodings. - Peter Constable
Are we saying we have exhausted such necessity?
And what are these legacy-standard
Dean Snyder scripsit:
In gross terms, I would characterize the watershed events in scripts
used to write Hebrew as:
1) adoption of the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet
2) adoption, around the time of the Babylonian exile, of Imperial Aramaic
script (coupled with some portions of the Hebrew
Patrick,
On 4 May 2004, at 21:27, Patrick Andries wrote:
Patrick Andries a écrit :
Christian Cooke a écrit :
Surely a cipher is by definition after the event, i.e. there must
be the parent script before the child. Does it not follow that, by
John's reasoning, if one is no more than a cipher of
The existing composites were included only out of necessity so that
new
Unicode implementations could interoperate with existing
implementations
using legacy industry-standard encodings. - Peter Constable
Are we saying we have exhausted such necessity?
Yes, because by definition legacy
From: African Oracle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The existing composites were included only out of necessity so that new
Unicode implementations could interoperate with existing implementations
using legacy industry-standard encodings. - Peter Constable
Are we saying we have exhausted such necessity?
Thanks to have taken the time to explain.
Regards
Dele
- Original Message -
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:50 AM
Subject: RE: Just if and where is the then?
The existing composites were included only out of necessity
Title: RE: UNIHAN.TXT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 12:12 AM
Tabs... In addition to the points Mike made about the tab
character having
different semantics depending on the application/platform, I
just
Dele,
No new composite values will be added. - Peter Constable
The above sounds dictatorial in nature.
Peter has already explained that this is just the nature
of the current policy regarding such additions. The reason
for the policy others in this thread have attempted to
explain. The short
At 16:11 -0400 2004-05-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, I am quite ignorant of Egyptian demotic as mentioned in the Coptic
proposal, but I am rather surprised to find that it's not on the Roadmaps
anywhere. Is it unified with hieroglyphic?
No. We don't know enough about its repertoire size.
Ken I appreciate your detailed response and Peter has also provided an
insightful answer. It is a learning process and I am learning everyday.
Regards
Dele Olawole
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:03, Michael Everson wrote:
Wedding invitations are routinely set in Blackletter and Gaelic
typefaces. I bet you 20 that if an ordinary Hebrew speaker sent out
a wedding invitation in Palaeo-Hebrew no one would turn up on the day.
And I bet you 20 that is an
Michael Everson wrote at 11:07 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
If you think that a Hebrew Gemara, with its baroque and
wonderful typographic richness, can be represented in a Phoenician
font, then you might as well give up using Unicode and go back to
8859 font switching and font hacks for Indic.
Michael Everson wrote at 8:19 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
Phoenician script, on the other hand, is so
different that its use renders a ritual scroll
unclean.
I'm just guessing that the same thing would be true for modern cursive
Hebrew?
Regardless, since when is the ritual uncleanness of
African Oracle scripsit:
Are we saying we have exhausted such necessity?
Yes.
And what are these legacy-standard encodings?
Those devised by ISO, various national governments, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple,
roughly speaking.
No new composite values will be added. - Peter Constable
The above
Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:00 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
Out of interest, are there any dictionaries e.g. of the Phoenician
language which use both Phoenician and Hebrew script, with a plain
text distinction?
James Kass presented a non-dictionary text the other day. I considered
it
Michael Everson wrote at 9:26 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
If you people, after all of this discussion, can think that it is
possible to print a newspaper article in Hebrew language or Yiddish
in Phoenician letters, then all I can say is that understanding of
the fundamentals of script identity
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I'd be interested in such a building. Anyplace still using Phoenician
script? Aside from the Samaritans, whose script has evolved some as
well... Wow.
Yes, Wow was exactly my reaction too. I've put some pictures up at
http://www.smontagu.org/PalaeoHebrew/
It's
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
If it were possible to do this, couldn't we rearrange everything so that
the points were NOT screwed up like they are?
No. The numbers assigned to the various canonical combining classes
are arbitrary so they can be renumbered, but which characters belong to which
So why can we have zillions of CJK code points and make a fuss about
a few single code points that must be composed by an ever growing
intelligent display software that is also supposed to run on all
platforms?
So why are we unifying all middle east past and present
scripts?
Why are the few
[Original Message]
From: Mark E. Shoulson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5/4/2004 7:49:45 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Peter Kirk wrote:
It would actually be possible, although I am not sure if it is useful,
to rearrange all the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 12:44 PM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
Please take a look at the attached screen shot taken from:
www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09Chap.pdf
If anyone can look at the text in the screen shot and honestly
say that they do not believe that it should be possible to
encode
Peter Constable wrote at 8:58 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
Ah, so the next protracted debate is going to be whether Samaritan
should also be encoded using the existing square Hebrew characters.
Since it would appear that the argument for unification of PH with
Hebrew could also argue for
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
