> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Kenneth Whistler wrote at 5:41 PM on Friday, May 28, 2004: > > >the question of > >what is a script distinction, what it comes down to in > >the Unicode Standard is that a script distinction is a > >distinct encoding of a script, neither more nor less. > > Then you cannot, as many have, use the argument that you want to encode > Phoenician because it is a different script - that is circular reasoning > - it's a different script because it will be if encoded. If there is consensus that something is an ontologically-distinct script (i.e. we're talking about the thing in the real world, not things in the model comprised by our encoding), then I think it's likely we would create a distinct script in our encoding. We generally don't end up debating these issues because everybody acknowledges a distinction. Here, the ontological and encoding-model notions of "script" coincide. But if there isn't consensus about the ontological distinctness, we may or may not encode a distinct script, and the ontological and encoding-model notions of script may or may not coincide. In these cases, we decide whether to encode based on the anticipated needs of users overall, taking into consideration a variety of factors. Regarding which, you have not yet commented, Dean, on the technical issues and usage scenarios I've mentioned in relation to users other than Semitic paleographers. I'm curious to know what comments you might have. Peter Constable
