C J Fynn wrote:
More than once during this discussion, I've thought that somethingapproaching a generalprinciple might be stated as 'related dead scripts should be unified; theirlivingdescendants may be separately encoded'.
Where two 'related dead scripts' have substantial differences in shaping requirements this might create major implementation difficulties on some systems.
See continuation of my exchange with Rick: I was presuming that technical obstacles to unification were not at issue, since these should be considered first. If there are technical obstacles, obviously there is no point in debating the merits of unification.
With 'Phoenician', we appear to have no technical obstacle to either the unification of a number of ancient North Semitic scripts or, indeed, unification with the existing Hebrew block. Hence the debate: not, as Ken suggested, how to apportion the halves of the baby, but where to make the cut.
John Hudson
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants
to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win.
And I succeed sometimes
In making him win.
- Charles Peguy
