On 02/06/2004 13:48, Christopher Fynn wrote:
...
<>
An analogous statement can be made of any script in Unicode. We can all
continue to use code pages or the myriad Hebrew fonts that put the
glyphs at
Latin-0 code points. If the proposed Phoenician block can be so easily
ignored in encoding ancient Canaanite texts, then is the block really
needed?
A Phoenician block is obviously not needed by those who wish to
represent Phoenician / ancient Canaanite texts with Hebrew
Characters. It is only needed by those who wish to represent
Phoenician text with Phoenician characters and Hebrew text with
Hebrew characters.
- Chris
The fallacy in this argument is that there is a difference between a
wish and a need. Some people have said that they wish to represent
Phoenician separately, just as other people have said that they wish to
represent Klingon or Japanese separately, but they have not demonstrated
a need to do so. Peter C's latter scenario, the journal editor, comes
close to demonstrating this, but it does not come (explicitly) from an
actual user. Chris, you need to refer to that scenario or something
similar if you want your argument to be at all convincing.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
