On 29/04/2004 19:04, John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
This sounds a lot like what is being proposed, modulo a name-change: we're working on a Samaritan proposal, Hebrew's already there, and Michael has proposed Old Canaanite, which for some reason he has chosen to call Phoenician. The name may be ill-chosen, and it isn't too late to change it, but it sounds like you're in general agreement with me and Peter Kirk.
Mark, are you sure that you and Peter are in general agreement? Peter seems to be opposing the encoding of Old Canaanite / Phoenician / Ancient North Semitic outright, ...
No, John, I am not. I am asking searching questions about the desirability of such encoding. I have yet to see any proper justification of it, if we leave aside character tables which are clearly not plain text. And I have yet to see any evidence that the user community has a requirement for it.
... while you and Dean seem to be supporting some kind of unified encoding for some subset of ancient Near-Eastern scripts separate from the existing Hebrew block. [On the question of Aramaic, the agreement seems closer.]I would be quite happy to agree to such a proposal if it is properly justified.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
