On 26/05/2004 11:56, Peter Constable wrote:
If we can all agree that legibility is not a sufficient criterion on its own for encoding Phoenician and Palaeo-Hebrew separately, then let's indeed move on and see if there are any other technical arguments for separate encoding. I don't remember seeing any. This seems to suggest to me that there is no technical justification for the proposal. Can we agree on that?From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf
Of Dean Snyder
forCan we agree to drop the discussion of Fraktur now?A better way to put this, and the only reason I brought up Fraktur to
begin with, is to ask, Can we agree to drop the legibility argument
Phoenician? Or at least use it consistent with its use for otherscripts
encoded in Unicode?
Legibility is *one* consideration. Certainly we must use it consistently wrt PH as for other cases. But now that we have established what that means (some people find PH used for Hebrew text to be illegible, so distinct encoding *may* be warranted), we don't need to refer to Fraktur any further to apply it to PH.
If so, we need to ask a more general question: should the UTC encode scripts for which there is a (small, in this case) demand but no technical justification?
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
