- Message d'origine -
De: "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - Message d'origine -
> De: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 17:46 + 2003-12-26, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
>
> >>(Though the Roman style & Fraktur style of Latin script are probably
more
> >>
.
Peter Kirk wrote,
> Perhaps we should have a special block of "Epigraphical Alphanumeric
> Symbols", to go with the "Mathematical...", for which epigraphers can
> propose all manner of glyph variants which they might find useful, while
> the rest of us ignore these blocks get on with encoding
Elaine Keown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have only heard that they had
> different opinions at Harvard and at UChicago. I
> don't know (sorry) how these texts are viewed at Johns
> Hopkins.
How about in European and Middle Eastern Universities?
On 26/12/2003 19:10, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
...
Personally I think although many scholars may regard Phoenician, Moabite, Old
Hebrew, Samaritan, and Old Aramaic:as one "writing system" - for contemporary
political reasons some descendents of the users of those scripts might take
offence i
On 26/12/2003 17:28, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
...
My own unscientific gut instinct is to be sympathetic to encoding "dead"
ancient scripts separately even when they are related since valuable historic
information may be conveyed simply by the fact a manuscript is written in one
script or ano
On 27/12/2003 03:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Practitioners of many sciences need Unicode in order to store and exchange
information. Mathematicians have successfully encoded what are essentially
Latin glyph variants separately for usage as math variables in Plane One,
including Fraktur a
On 23/12/2003 22:05, Doug Ewell wrote:
Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Remember that Unicode (not ISO 10646) was originally going to be a
16bit (plane 0 only encoding) - so I suspect CJK unification was at
least partly due to space limitations.
I think there was something in there about fun
At 14:44 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:
Doug, thanks for making this new point re ancient Semitic scripts.
Fundamental identity of the characters is a strong reason for
unifying these scripts as well as Han scripts. As I wrote a few days
ago, ALEF is ALEF is ALEF is ALEF, whatever glyph sh
On 12/26/03 15:27, Michael Everson wrote:
At 17:46 + 2003-12-26, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
(Though the Roman style & Fraktur style of Latin script are probably
more
different from each other as some of the separately encoded Indic
scripts [e.g. Kannada / Telugu])
Sorry, Chris, this is
At 13:36 -0500 2003-12-27, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be
unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in the extreme,
and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that
Samaritan is also not to be unified
Michael Everson scripsit:
> I remain convinced, however, that suggestion
> that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous
> in the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is
> clear that Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.
There's clearly a sl
At 11:20 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind
about Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically
declaring that there is "zero chance" that they will be considered
glyphic variants of one another.
I'm sorry you object. I
Christopher John Fynn scripsit:
> OTOH in their sphere Han Chinese at least seem keen to stress cultural
> unity as much as possible - hence they see the 'Phags-pa script as
> a Chinese invention - though others would say it was invented by a
> Tibetan for Mongolian and is ultimately based on an
Dean
Thanks for your reply
It seems that you consider encoding characters to handle epigraphic needs
acceptable.
EPIDAURAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL TWO (2 dots) and THESPIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL TWO
(crooked line) seem to have the same underlying meaning - and I don't see any
semantic difference betwee
Michael Everson wrote at 1:38 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:
>At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>>This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
>>damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
>>script.
>
>I am not interested i
The information in N2042 on this script now seems a little out of date.
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2042.pdf says:
<< The Manipuri script is a recently extinct script that was formerly used to
write the Meithei language in Manipur State, India. The script may have been
introduced as e
Christopher John Fynn wrote at 12:53 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:
>Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support,
>> in plain text, for the needs of paleographers?
>
>What would you call these
>http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2612/n2612-3.pdf ?
Characters
Dean Snyder wrote:
> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support,
> in plain text, for the needs of paleographers?
What would you call these
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2612/n2612-3.pdf ?
which have been accepted
[http://std.dug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2623.pdf page 46]
- Chris
At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
script.
I am not interested in participating in this kind of discourse. This
is not "Michael Everson vs t
.
Dean Snyder wrote,
>
> >But, in either case it is hoped that the needs of script
> >taxonomists and paleographers won't be disregarded.
>
> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support, in plain text, for the
> needs of paleographers?
>
Practitioners of many sciences need Unicode in order to
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dean Snyder wrote:
> Furthermore, I would venture to say that Unicode encoders met extensive,
> entrenched opposition by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scholars in the
> effort to unify CJK, which makes it all the more striking that NOW it is
You're indeed venturing to say t
21 matches
Mail list logo
