Christopher Fynn wrote:
*All* classification is arbitrary.
If script classification is arbitrary or nominal, isn't there is still a case for attempting some consistency or following a single model within a particular standard like the UCS?
Indeed there is. If a single, one-size-fits-all model can't be described, at least a series of guidelines could be, i.e. guidelines formalised by the UTC not simply endorsed by one person who happens to have proposed a lot of stuff to be encoded. I have a huge amount of respect for Michael and his achievements, but I think something other than his opinion and endorsement is necessary to formally clarify the grounds for encoding or not encoding contentious writing systems. The absence of such guidelines promotes the kind of circular debate we've seen over Phoenician. Appeals to precedence should be considered, but I don't think they are convincing in themselves because everyone knows that precedence also involved an absence of specific guidelines and decisions that, arguably, could or should have been different. As noted previously, guidelines are more important for dealing with historical scripts than for living ones, since more contentious questions tend to be raised by such writing systems.
John Hudson
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Currently reading: Typespaces, by Peter Burnhill White Mughals, by William Dalrymple Hebrew manuscripts of the Middle Ages, by Colette Sirat
