Doug Ewell wrote:
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
But didn't someone already point out that with OpenType tables, it
would be relatively easy to map "alternate" Phoenician glyphs to the
existing Hebrew code points?
You're not helping, Doug.
Apparently my post was badly misunderstood.
Michael said he believes that Elaine attributes his support for separate
encoding of Phoenician to his role as a font designer, and not a Semitic
scholar.
I replied, in essence, that a font designer per se would have no
particular stake in seeing Phoenician separately encoded, as opposed to
being considered a font variant of Hebrew (as some Semitic scholars
apparently want), because OpenType tables provide a perfectly good
mechanism for implementing font variants.
Therefore, since there is no font-design limitation, Michael's desire to
encode Phoenician separately from Hebrew must be based on something
else.
Like the fact that they are different scripts.
That's the point. One's facility as a font-designer or lack of same
does not bear on one's ability to understand and make sense of encoding
decisions. I suppose what's being claimed here is that Elaine's
question was more about what people are not than what people are: who
here is *just* a font-designer, as opposed to a scholar in whatever
particular historical or literary field (never mind the fact that it's
possible to be both). Of course, this is putting words into Elaine's
mouth, and she can perfectly well speak for herself and clarify what she
was really trying to find out.
(Do we have to fight out Phoenician vs Hebrew *again*???)
~mark
