> users who have the most interest vested in
> the encoding are the scholars themselves (and they are saying the state of
> the art prevents a useable encoding at the time)
I don't think it's all scholars who have objected to the Egyptian
proposal. But this is a case where there appears to be no glimmer of
agreement about it among those whose assent is most desired by the encoding
committees. And, unlike the cuneiform case, no Egyptian scholars appear
interested enough in an encoding to keep talking about it with us.
The serious scholars seem to already have software systems that are
adequate for their needs -- e.g. the Manel de Codage. However, as
Carl-Martin Bunz has pointed out on several occasions, there is a conflict
here, as with many historical scripts, between the mere citizens who just
want 700 or 800 neat hieroglyphics to mess with, and the serious scholars
who want nothing to be encoded until they are satisfied of its perfection
for their purposes.
Some people just want to be able to send around Hieroglyphs in the
Gardiner set, or similar, for populist purposes -- as Carl-Martin says,
"funware" -- and sometimes armchair scholarship. Many serious scholars
don't want to see that situation because they (apparently) fear it would
undermine their eventual, more perfect proposal, and lead the populace
astray. Either that or they can't be bothered wasting their time on such
frivolity.
So we're stuck with not being able to encode anything. And nobody is
really talking about how to compromise, or about what might be reasonable
to encode as a first step for popular purposes yet not "undermine" a later
more scholarly encoding extension.
Rick
