At 8:07 PM +0200 7/3/01, Genenz wrote:
>Should one consider the Chinese oracle bone
>inscriptions (1200 BC) for entry to the unicode list?
>They really did exist.
>
As a rule, historical scripts (in which I'll include OBI, even though
their descendant is with us today), are encoded when the following
criteria are met:
1) They are sufficiently well understood that a definitive catalog
of signs can be made, for at least part of the collection, and
2) Representatives of the scholarly community are involved in the
encoding process.
The problem with OBI is that, as I understand it, the only signs
which are sufficiently well understood that they would meet criterion
(1) are already in Unicode in the form of their modern forms. I
could be wrong and am starting to research the matter myself.
--
=====
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
