Dean continued: > Or (making the missed point explicit):
I attempted to bring this thread back on track yesterday, but since it seems to have veered off into the ditch again, we may as well spin our wheels some more, I guess. :-( > If the UTC did consider the potential for large numbers of users as a > decisive criterion for encoding a script, The UTC and WG2 *do* consider the potential for a significant number of users as *one* criterion for encoding a script. It may not be a *decisive* criterion, and people's opinions will vary concerning how large a number of users has to be to be considered significant. Certainly more than one. > Japanese would be separately encoded. This is an utter non demonstrandum. "Japanese" is a writing system, not a script. The Unicode Standard does not encode writing systems -- it encodes scripts. And the scripts used by the Japanese writing system *are* separately encoded -- separately from other scripts. > I can assure you, that there would be many users for a > separately encoded Japanese, On what basis do you assert that? Especially given that there are, in this case, literally tens of millions of users of Japanese language data represented using the characters encoded in the Unicode Standard as currently defined. > just as there would be for a separately encoded Fraktur, A faulty analogy, as well as another assertion with no apparent evidence to back it up. > many more, of course, than users for Phoenician. Well, this is likely to be true, in any case. ;-) > And > since Japanese and Fraktur are not separately encoded just because there > would be lots of people who would use such an encoding, Unless you are using "just because" in some sense I am unfamiliar with in the English language, this claim makes no sense whatsoever to me. The Japanese writing system and the Fraktur style of the Latin script are not separately encoded because neither is adjudged to be a distinct script, not because of some speculative census of potential users. > why would you, on that same faulty basis, Making a nonsensical claim, then (falsely) attributing it to others as the basis of claims they make would seem to be a double red herring to me. > support a separate encoding for Phoenician? Michael, I, and a number of others have already stated sufficient reasons for why we would support a separate encoding for the Phoenician (~Old Canaanite) script. Refusing to accept those reasons is insufficient grounds for continuing to pose rhetorical questions implying that no one has ever posted such reasons. Refusing to accept those reasons as sufficient to convince *you* of the need for an encoding is no grounds whatsoever for implying that they might not seem sufficient to others. > It's inconsistent thinking, and other reasons will need to > be found. Well, I don't consider there to be a need for other reasons. Therefore, there *is* no need for other reasons. *winks to those who get it* *whoosh for those who don't* By the way, as your attempted analogy above appears to demonstrate a failure to understand the distinction between a writing system and a script for the purposes of encoding in the Unicode Standard, perhaps you would consider recusing yourself from further argumentation regarding the proposed encoding of Phoenician. No? I thought not, but I had to give it a try. --Ken
