From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Dean Snyder
I have brought
up a multitude of different arguments over the past few weeks against
this proposal.
I certainly don't recall a multitude of different arguments from you,
though perhaps I've gotten tired of hearing
Kenneth re-iterated:
Dean continued:
Or (making the missed point explicit):
I attempted to bring this thread back on track yesterday, but
since it seems to have veered off into the ditch again, we
may as well spin our wheels some more, I guess. :-(
My response to your assessment was that it
Dean Snyder wrote,
What I said was that most of the Hebrew fonts that people have are Latin
clones (i.e., overloaded ASCII), and I would bet that the corresponding
Phoenician fonts use the same (ASCII) code points for the same characters
as their Hebrew counterparts.
How could you lose?
After a day away from e-mail because I was travelling home from
Azerbaijan, I found about 100 postings on this subject. I want to reply
to several of them, but I will put most of my replies together into this
one posting.
On 20/05/2004 16:51, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
John Hudson asked,
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 26/04/2004 10:47, Rick McGowan wrote:
Personally I would strongly oppose making a new public list parallel to
this one for locale discussions.
My experience over several years of maintaining mail lists is that most
new lists have a week or two of postings and then languish. It is not worth
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 06:46 -0700 2004-05-22, Peter Kirk wrote:
Or are we to expect that as soon as Phoenician is encoded
separately, the majority of Semitic scholars who have always opposed
this will come under all kinds of pressure to use the encoded script
which was added just to meet the requirements of a
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
From: Kenneth Whistler Friday, May 21, 2004 12:51 AM
...
If such is the case, then there *is* a need -- the question
then just devolves to whether the need is significant enough
for the UTC and WG2 to bother with it, and whether even if
the need is met by encoding of characters, anyone will
Peter Kirk wrote,
There has now been nearly a month to gain experience on this issue.
During this time there have been several hundred postings related to
locales. In just the last two days there have been more than 100. It is
very tedious for those of working on character encoding issues
Michael Everson wrote,
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
The proposed PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TWENTY is actually a ligature of
two PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TENs and should be encoded as:
TEN plus ZWJ plus TEN
Treating such ligatures properly, that is --
On 22/05/2004 12:17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There has now been nearly a month to gain experience on this issue.
During this time there have been several hundred postings related to
locales. In just the last two days there have been more than 100. It is
very
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There has now been nearly a month to gain experience on this issue.
During this time there have been several hundred postings related to
locales. In just the last two days there have been more than 100. It is
very tedious for those of working on character
At 19:13 + 2004-05-22, James Kass wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote,
There has now been nearly a month to gain experience on this issue.
During this time there have been several hundred postings related to
locales.
Actually they were related to ISO 15924, which is a different thing
from the
At 12:30 -0700 2004-05-22, Peter Kirk wrote:
Well, CLDR and ISO 15924 are both about locales, and not about
character encoding.
ISO 15924 is about script codes. It is not about locales.
If this discussion does indeed come to an end soon, I will be happy.
But I will continue to be unhappy if
At 19:38 + 2004-05-22, James Kass wrote:
Michael Everson wrote,
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
The proposed PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TWENTY is actually a ligature of
two PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TENs and should be encoded as:
TEN plus ZWJ plus TEN
It may
Peter Kirk wrote:
And in case anyone is thinking of complaining about how much
discussion of Phoenician there has been on this list, I did try to
divert the discussion to the Hebrew list right at the start, but
everyone else wanted to discuss it here.
Maybe everyone who doesn't think
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
Dean Snyder wrote:
side-stepping the whole issue of the origins of
the Greek alphabet along with its subsequent
Mediterranean script descendants, while
not mucking up Canaanite which is already encoded
And Michael Everson wrote:
Zounds.
What tripe.
Peter Kirk wrote,
After a day away from e-mail because I was travelling home from
Azerbaijan, I found about 100 postings on this subject.
Henceforth to be known informally as The Thread From Hell.
Well, we are now being assured that people who want to encode
Phoenician, palaeo-Hebrew etc
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear James Kass:
Would it be possible for you to explain how a *few*
people using a separate Phoenician block, who don't
exchange data with each other as far as you know,
and who don't exchange data with true Semitic
scholars as far as anyone can tell,
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Kass)
Peter Kirk wrote,
There has now been nearly a month to gain experience on this issue.
During this time there have been several hundred postings related to
locales. In just the last two days there have been more than 100. It is
On 22/05/2004 14:04, James Kass wrote:
...
Well, we are now being assured that people who want to encode
Phoenician, palaeo-Hebrew etc as Unicode Hebrew will be quite free to do
so indefinitely even if Phoenician is encoded.
There is no such assurance. The actual assurance is more like
At 15:14 -0700 2004-05-22, E. Keown wrote:
I got hysterical--or perhaps I should say, continued to be
hysterical--because I thought no one on the Unicode list was
listening (even to Dean Snyder, a
very serious expert) and I thought maybe you all would listen to
Kaufmanhe does have the
Peter,
A longer response on related issues, probably by tomorrow but for now:
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 22/05/2004 14:04, James Kass wrote:
...
Well, we are now being assured that people who want to encode
Phoenician, palaeo-Hebrew etc as Unicode Hebrew will be quite free to
do so indefinitely even
Peter Kirk wrote,
As I understand it, what at least a number of Semitic scholars want to
do is not to transliterate, but to represent Phoenician texts with
Phoenician letters with the Unicode Hebrew characters, and fonts with
Phoenician glyphs at the Hebrew character code points. In other
Someone said here that there are today lots of more scripts studied than have
for now no interchangeability, but that may be still needed for bibliographic
references, so that there was already a private registry of private use script
codes (PUSC) nearly filling all the PUSC space allocated in ISO
Peter Kirk wrote:
The fear is rather that a few people, who are not true Semitic
scholars, will embrace the new range, and by doing so will make things
much harder for the majority who don't need and don't want the new
encoding. One of the original purposes of Unicode was to move away
from the
Michael, this is not getting anywhere.
You think it is a different script, so you say transliterate. They think
it's the same script, so they say encode.
Since there are 22 letters with similar meanings and similar names, there is
not much difference between transliteration and encoding in
It's hard for me to believe that the world community of Semitic scholars
is so small or monolithic that there aren't differences of opinion among
them. I have been almost automatically suspicious of the posts by the
Semiticists opposed to encoding Phoenician; after thirty-four years in
30 matches
Mail list logo
