> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of E. Keown
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:47 PM
> The *point* is that everything that's screwed up in
> Unicode Biblical Hebrew (well, almost everything)
> could have been done correctly in the first edition of
> Unicode, if the early Unicoders had listened to Alan
> Groves and others.
[lots of self scensoring]
[lots more self censoring]
Elaine, please review these threads. Among the things that stand clear, notable is the fact that a group of Semiticists, however large or unequivocal, is not the only userbase served by Unicode. There is an explicit requirement to examine the needs of the entire userbase, not just part of it, and accepting the work of one group /carte blanche/ would not fulfill that requirement. As the evidence grows that there are usergroups, however small or quiet, who need separate character sets for Phoenician and Hebrew, your assertion goes from inflammatory to absurd.
/|/|ike
P.S. What is "Unicode Biblical Hebrew"? Are you referring to all that stuff that doesn't yet exist in Unicode?
