On 15/05/2004 16:14, Patrick Andries wrote:
...
[PA2] I suspect you are going to an answer to the effect that you are not anymore forced to use Qamats Qatan in Hebrew than you are to use the cedilla in English for � fa�ade�. But, while this is true, if you compare a Unicode script that used to not include "�" or a combining cedilla with the new one that now includes it, this has an effect on algorithms (searching, transcoding, normalisation, even fonts for instance) and in this sense Unicode forces people do something about it (not that it is bad to have this ripple effect).
Well, at least "fa�ade" and "facade" collate together at the top level, with the default collation weights, and so one will match the other in simple searches. As qamats and qamats qatan are both combining marks, they will certainly not be distinguished at the top level, and they could be specified as collated together, by default, at every level above the code point level. Indeed, as a new character the proposed qamats qatan could be specified with a compatibility decomposition to the regular qamats, and it seems to me that that would be a sensible idea. In that case the two characters would be automatically distinguished only at the third level.
Similarly, I suppose, with the proposed Phoenician script: each character could be given a compatibility decomposition to the equivalent Hebrew letter. This implies automatic interleaved collation. Now, while I don't expect Michael Everson to jump at this suggestion, I do think that it should be considered as a compromise between the otherwise irreconcilable desires of many to unify the two scripts and of some to separate them.
If adding new scripts does not force one to use them, � Unicode doesn't force people to do anything � and space is not an issue, why not include new Punic and Neo-punic scripts along the proposed Phoneician ? After all, I may want to show the diachronic evolution of Phoenician (Semitic) words (from 1200 BC to 200 AD for instance) in plain text (XML). Why unify Phoenician with Punic and Neo-Punic ? No one will be forced to use Punic and Neo-Punic after all. Surely there must be a reason why you proposed a unification (and it may make perfect sense). Is it only for genealogical reasons or because the non consulted community of Punic users (which probably is any case too conservative in the eyes of some) did request unification ?
Again, if the separate Punic script were to be compatibility equivalent to Phoenician or Hebrew I would not have strong objections; but otherwise I am sure that there would be strong objections on the grounds that yet further splitting of what is logically the same script used for closely related languages leads to even more confusion.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
