On 30/11/2004 22:22, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 30/11/2004 19:53, John Cowan wrote:
Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote. ...
Thank you, John. This was in fact my question: will the amendment be passed automatically if there is a majority in favour, or does it go back for further discussion until a consensus is reached? You have clarified that the latter is true. And I am glad to hear it.
Probably, the WG2 will now consider alternatives to examine how Phoenician can be represented. The current proposal may be voted "no" for other reasons that just a formal opposition against the idea of encoding it as a separate script, possibly because the proposal is still incomplete, or does not resolve significant issues, or does not help making Phoenician texts better worked with computers...
Philippe, there is no need to speculate about reasons for rejection, because they are clearly stated in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2876.pdf.
Thank you for at least this sensible comment. But I don't see much mileage in taking Phoenician as a variant of Greek.
...
So may be it's too soon to encode Phoenician now, given that its immediate successors are still not encoded, and a formal model for them is still missing.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
