> [Original Message]
> From: John Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On May 19, 2004, at 5:07 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>
> > Michael, can you briefly outline the points regarding this
> > 'requirement'? The only one that has been repeatedly referred to in
> > this too-long discussion is the Tetragrammaton usage; I'm not sure
> > whether that constitutes a requirement for plain-text or not. What are
> > the other points?
> >
>
> You go down to your local cybercafe to read your email from your
> grandmother telling you all about your nephew's bar-mitzvah.
> Unfortunately, your local cybercafe has no modern Hebrew (or Yiddish)
> installed, but they *do* have a Phoenician one. You cannot, as a
> result, even tell what language your grandmother is writing you in, let
> alone what it means.
I would be very surprised if there were such a cybercafe. One
that had both a Hebrew-Phoenican and a Hebrew-Hebrew font
with the Hebrew-Phoenician as the default would be much easier
to believe as a possibility. Still, it is a valid point. I think that if
Phoenician were to be unified with Hebrew, it would probably
behoove Unicode to establish variation sequences for Phoenician.
Even with a separate Phoenician script, it might be a good idea
to provide variation sequences that could be used to identify
different script styles such as Paleo-Hebrew and Punic
in the plain text.
