It is nice to join this forum and hope to gain and contribute to discussions
here. I am Dele Olawole, the CEO of D-Net Communications www.dnetcom.com
based in Norway. My involvement with developing Africa related contents
offer me the opportunity to go into developing African fonts with special
int
> [Original Message]
> From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Ernest Cline scripsit:
>
> > Defining Europe is vague.
>
> Well, Michael Everson back in 1995 defined it thus:
>
> "Europe" extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including
> Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastward
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Unicode itself does not define scripts. It just uses one or more ISO
> 15924 "scripts" (Ãcriture) to unify them into the same "Unicode script
> block" by sharing the same code points for characters considered,
> bibliographically, as distinct due to their legibility.
"I h
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> Neither ISO 3166-3 nor (perhaps more annoyingly) ISO 3166-2 codes are
> allowed in RFC 3066 language tags. So at least in that context, there
> is no possibility of confusing them with ISO 15924 script codes.
Actually, anything can be used in RFC 3066 if it's registered.
Michael Everson scripsit:
> Scholarship seems to have proved it, whether or not you believe it.
Well, we have heard about part of the dispute.
> It follows therefore (though not if you don't believe it, I suppose)
> that unifying Square Hebrew (which we have encoded in Unicode) with
> the hist
John Cowan wrote:
> Catalan is not Spanish, and has its own code.
Yes, of course, I missed that. If you really meant Catalan (not
"Castilian"), substitute "ca-whatever" for "es-whatever."
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
on 2004-05-02 16:26 Michael Everson wrote:
Children learning about the history of their alphabets
I've been following this discussion off and on, and figured I didn't
have much to add, but I can relate to this remark. I was a child, once,
and I had a fascination with scripts and languages that h
> Excuse me? This is a 22-character script with one-to-one correspondence
> with a preëncoded script, that uses the same sounds as that script and
> even the same spelling in the major languages that use that script, and
> which people who work with the older version generally encode in the newer
>
Ernest Cline scripsit:
> Defining Europe is vague.
Well, Michael Everson back in 1995 defined it thus:
"Europe" extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including
Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastwards to the
Mediterranean (including Malta and Cyprus), with its
At 22:54 -0400 2004-05-02, John Cowan wrote:
Greek doesn't derive from Square Hebrew, and I never claimed it did.
Greek does derive from some variant of the 22CWSA, posssibly (but not
provably) the ones used to write the Phoenician language.
Scholarship seems to have proved it, whether or not you b
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> ISO 15924 alpha-4 codes are already distinguishable from ISO 639 and
>> ISO 3166 codes, simply by virtue of being four letters long.
>
> Not really: Many ISO 3166-3 codes (for former countries or territories
> or those that have changed their code) are also 4 letters.
>
>
Michael Everson scripsit:
> You can say this over and over and over again, John, and it doesn't
> make a unification of Phoenician with its daughter-via-Aramaic Square
> Hebrew a reasonable unification. Greek does not derive from glyph
> variants of Hebrew script. The Greek script derives from
Michael Everson wrote...
> >The historical cut that has been made here considers the line from
> >Phoenician to Punic to represent a single continuous branch of
> >script evolution.
>
> I think Rick McGowan wrote that sentence in UTR#3.
Indeed, I did. And I based my take on this history on the "s
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> Not really: Many ISO 3166-3 codes (for former countries or territories
> or those that have changed their code) are also 4 letters.
>
> For example ZRCD designates the former Zaïre (now Dem. Rep. of Congo),
> DDDE the former Dem. Rep. of Germany (now unified with German
At 21:44 -0400 2004-05-02, John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
If Phoenician is considered a glyphic variation of modern Hebrew, then
it can also be considered a glyphic variation of modern Greek.
Greek is descended from the 22CWSA, but its alphabet is *not* the 22CWSA
structurally.
Yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> If Phoenician is considered a glyphic variation of modern Hebrew, then
> it can also be considered a glyphic variation of modern Greek.
Greek is descended from the 22CWSA, but its alphabet is *not* the 22CWSA
structurally.
> it then follow that modern Greek should
> Still it seems legitimate to mark the font explicitly with the private
> convention it is supposed to support. For example a font containing glyphs
> mapped to PUAs assigned in the 2003 version of the ConScript PUA registry
> could
> be marked as such by including a trace of this private usage ag
Michael Everson scripsit:
> I don't believe that it is possible to claim that the Phoenician
> script is identical to the Hebrew script. When scripts have identity,
> it is possible to change fonts and still have people be able to
> recognize them. We did this when we unified the three Syriac s
> > So now if you think that two scripts that are isomorphic and closely related
> > should be unified, then you're exerting "political pressure"?
> Since no rational basis for the heated objections to the proposal
> seems apparent, "political pressure" appears to be a likely choice.
Excuse me? T
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 01/05/2004 14:21, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >The Council of Europe, which includes 15 countries in Europe (including
> >Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, San Marino but excluding the Holy See, and
> >the next member Monaco) and Asia (i
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 11:10 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >Stop poking fun at me and treating me as an imbecile. Of course you
> >know that I know that this script was actually used.
>
> You are the one who said that its *only* demonstrated usage is in
> alphabet
I posted this message to the message boards of Distributed Proofreaders-Europe
(a joint effort of Project Rastko and Project Gutenberg
),
and got this response from one of the site admins.
> nikola wrote:
> Haha Romanian use Cyrillic up to 19th century, so sooner
> or later, we WILL have R
I wrote:
> The FDIS from February 2003 states that "The four-letter codes SHALL
> be written with an initial capital Latin letter and final small Latin
> letters" (emphasis mine).
Never mind that; the *actual approved standard* says the same:
http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/standard/index.html
At 01:20 +0200 2004-05-04, Simon Montagu wrote:
As far as I know, there are very few surviving Paleo-Hebrew texts in
any form, but googling for the first words of those I know of
produces at least one hit in each case:
I am sure that the Dhammapada can be found written (transliterated)
in many s
At 14:17 -0700 2004-05-02, John Hudson wrote:
Again, you are missing the point because you are *assuming* that
encoding the Mesha Stele with Unicode Hebrew characters =
transliteration, i.e. that there is some other encoding that is more
proper or even 'true'. The contra-argument is that the 'Ph
At 11:43 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
And if you want to write Phoenician text in Phoenician script, you
can use Phoenician script for it. And if you want to write
Phoenician text in Hebrew transliteration, you can use Hebrew
script for it. And if you want to write Phoenician text in Lati
At 14:31 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:
> Samaritan would be the most direct continuation of the original Phoenician.
Well then, why doesn't the proposal for Phoenician reflect that?
Because it's not a proposal for Samaritan?
The only problem with common sense is that it isn't very common,
At 11:06 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
Michael Everson, who knows so little Phoenician that he doesn't know
how similar it is to Hebrew?
You are confusing language and script. I am not encoding the
Phoenician language. I am encoding a set of genetically related
scripts with similar behavio
At 11:10 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:36 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain
text usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and
didn't receive an answer: should Un
At 14:03 -0700 2004-05-02, Paul Nelson \(TYPOGRAPHY\) wrote:
It seems funny that a two or three character script, like Yi, must have
a weird name just so it has four alpha characters (Yiii).
Yes, it does.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 13:57 -0700 2004-05-02, John Hudson wrote:
In the code lists at
http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html the 4-letter
script codes are shown capitalised, e.g. Arab not arab, Armn not
armn, etc.. Is this intentional? Should the codes always be
capitalised? Does it matter if they ar
From: "Asmus Freytag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The classification of written materials for bibliographical use is
> different from the classification of writing systems for encoding. For a
> reader faced with the choice of locating a Fraktur or Roman edition of a
> German classic, having that informat
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ISO 15924 alpha-4 codes are already distinguishable from ISO 639 and ISO
> 3166 codes, simply by virtue of being four letters long.
Not really: Many ISO 3166-3 codes (for former countries or territories or those
that
have changed their code) are also 4 lett
Patrick Andries wrote:
Is there a lot of Paleo-Hebrew texts out there ? Encoded with the
Hebrew block ? If not this maybe a red herring
As far as I know, there are very few surviving Paleo-Hebrew texts in any
form, but googling for the first words of those I know of produces at
least one hit in
John Hudson wrote:
> Some acknowledgement that there is disagreement in this field would
> also be welcome. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying
> 'this encoding unified the following writing systems based on this
> analysis', while also acknowledging that this is not the only possib
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Everson wrote:
> In the code lists at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html the
4-letter
> script codes are shown capitalised, e.g. Arab not arab, Armn not armn, etc..
Is this
> intentional? Should the codes always be capitalised? Does
John Hudson wrote,
> Again, you are missing the point because you are *assuming* that encoding the
> Mesha Stele
> with Unicode Hebrew characters = transliteration, i.e. that there is some other
> encoding
> that is more proper or even 'true'. The contra-argument is that the 'Phoenician'
> s
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 02/05/2004 05:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting from the "jewfaq" page,
"The example of pointed text above uses Snuit's Web Hebrew AD font.
These Hebrew fonts map to ASCII 224-250, high ASCII characters which
are not normally available on the keyboard, but this is the mapp
John Hudson wrote:
> In the code lists at
http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html the 4-letter
> script codes are shown capitalised, e.g. Arab not arab, Armn not armn,
etc.. Is this
> intentional? Should the codes always be capitalised? Does it matter if
they are not?
The FDIS from F
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Not all font formats, not even all "smart" font formats, can contain all
> of the property information for every character the font supports.
> OpenType/Uniscribe was mentioned as an example where the rendering
> engine does work that would be done by the fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a silly question, because the whole debate is about that constitutes
'properly
encoded'. The Mesha Stele can be perfectly easily encoded using existing Hebrew
codepoints
and displayed in the Phoenician style with appropriate glyphs.
I'm not saying that this is
Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 10:25 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
Do you really think it necessary that the proposal be a thesis
reprising a hundred years of script analysis?
I think what's desirable is something of a summary that applies this
analysis in a way that it can be related to the resea
Michael Everson wrote:
The Unicode Consortium has been designated as Registration Authority for
ISO 15924; I have been engaged by the Consortium to act as Registrar.
The ISO 15924 web site is now online at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/
In the code lists at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15
John Hudson wrote,
> This is a silly question, because the whole debate is about that constitutes
> 'properly
> encoded'. The Mesha Stele can be perfectly easily encoded using existing Hebrew
> codepoints
> and displayed in the Phoenician style with appropriate glyphs.
>
> I'm not saying tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While the fact that it's called Phoenician script doesn't prove anything
about its origin, it might be considered indicative of the path through
which the script was borrowed.
Indeed. This is the point I made earlier: Greco-centric European scholarship of writing
systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Mesha Stele (otherwise known as the Moabite Stone) is already
available in Hebrew script. What is the need for a separate encoding of
the same text?
There are probably other transliterations of the text already available,
too, such as Latin. Wouldn't it be nice to s
C J Fynn wrote:
More than once during this discussion, I've thought that something
approaching a general
principle might be stated as 'related dead scripts should be unified; their
living
descendants may be separately encoded'.
Where two 'related dead scripts' have substantial differences in shapi
On 01/05/2004 11:21, Rick McGowan wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote...
But on the other hand, the lack of a consensus among *any*
people that they have a need for an encoding does seem to imply that
there is no need for an encoding.
In this, you are utterly wrong, I'm afraid. We (in UTC) have seen
wrote:
> The BabelPad editor can easily convert between UTF-8 and NCRs...
As can SC UniPad.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
At 09:20 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
At 03:28 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
> My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script
from Latin.
Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is exactly
on-point to my message--it is useful to distinguish
On 01/05/2004 14:21, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Welcome, Malta, to the European Community.
Correction: Welcome, Malta, to the "European Union".
Thank you for the correction.
...
The Council of Europe, which includes 15 countries in Europe (including
Swit
Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We (in UTC) have seen situations before where one group desires an
> encoding for a script that is strongly opposed by another group --
> even for the *same* language in the *same* historical period.
Ol Chiki, for example.
There is a { large, vocal } group
On 01/05/2004 14:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Viva Punicode!
James Kass
Cartago delenda est! Destroy the Phoenicians and long live Latin script
eveywhere! :-)
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
As one coming from the world of ancient Indo-European (IE) and as editor of a journal
on IE out of UCLA, I am in support of the Phoenician proposal.
In Indo-European, the origins of the Greek alphabet are of interest, and hence the
materials that discuss Phoenician as the possible source for th
On 02/05/2004 05:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
"Web Hebrew AD" and "Web Hebrew Monospace" are the names
of TrueType fonts. Other fonts use the same masquerade, thus
it was an ad-hoc "standard".
There are actually a large number of alternate and mutually incompatible
masquerades for Hebrew
On 02/05/2004 06:46, Michael Everson wrote:
...
And if it requires anything at all beyond the very basic conformance
requirements, it can be presumed to require that the Latin blocks are
used for Latin script, the Hebrew block for Hebrew script, and so (if
and when one is defined) the Phoenician
On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:36 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain text
usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and didn't
receive an answer: should Unicode encode a script whose ONLY
demonstrate
On 02/05/2004 06:33, Michael Everson wrote:
...
If so, you might be able to cite a body of opinion that it is a
separate script.
I have already done so. In the whole history of the study of writing,
no scholar has ever suggested that Phoenician is a variant of the
Hebrew script.
No, but they h
At 10:25 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
Do you really think it necessary that the proposal be a thesis reprising a
hundred years of script analysis?
I think what's desirable is something of a summary that applies this
analysis in a way that it can be related to the research. A thesis would
C J Fynn wrote:
> "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Certainly, but what is the distinction between downloading/
>> distributing a font or downloading/ditributing a XML file containing
>> the PUA conventions?
>
> One file not two - and some assurance that the custom properties
> hav
> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 13:08 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:
>
> >As long as you are doing a revision. One thing that would make
> >someone like me who knows very little about the glyphs themselves
> >happier with the proposal would be if t
At 13:08 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:
As long as you are doing a revision. One thing that would make
someone like me who knows very little about the glyphs themselves
happier with the proposal would be if there would be some
explanation with examples of why the proposed pruning of the
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 6:25 PM
Subject: ISO 15924
> The Unicode Consortium has been designated as Registration Authority
> for ISO 15924; I have been engaged by the Consortium to act
> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I remain grateful to Ernest Cline for his useful technical
> contribution to what will be the -R version of N2746. And I remain
> confident that Phoenician will be encoded as a unique script,
> separate from Hebrew.
Blush.
A
At 03:28 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
> My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate
script from Latin.
Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is
exactly on-point to my message--it is useful to distinguish scripts
in many cases that Unicode may not.
At 17:09 +0100 2004-05-01, C J Fynn wrote:
While it is essential to get input from experts in the script(s)
concerned, input from experts in script & character encoding is just
as important. It is members of the latter group that end up making
the final decision.
You know, Chris, when I was fill
At 10:45 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
Ken, in one sense the Unicode standard does not REQUIRE anyone to do
anything but only PERMITS them to do so. But in another sense, if it
fails to REQUIRE anything it becomes a waste of time.
An unsubstantiated supposition.
And if it requires anything
The Unicode Consortium has been designated as Registration Authority
for ISO 15924; I have been engaged by the Consortium to act as
Registrar.
The ISO 15924 web site is now online at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/
The Registrar requests that the e-mail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] be
discontinued,
At 08:58 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 29/04/2004 17:36, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:34 -0700 2004-04-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
But what answer do you have to my point, made in more detail
elsewhere, that it will cause total confusion, and defeat the
purposes of Unicode, if some people use
At 08:53 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
Is Fraser a separate script, or just an oddball application of
Latin caps for which we need a few new ones?
It is a separate script.
In your opinion. Or have you consulted with experts on this one, as
you failed to do on Phoenician?
Mr Kirk, while you
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> But is there some
> reason we call this the Latin script instead of the Roman script? Not
> that I'm suggesting we change it now, of course. I'm just curious.
Primarily because "roman" is used in opposition to "italic" as the name
of a font face, so "Cyrillic
D. Starner wrote,
>
> And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
> including one by Michael Everson. Even if we assume knowledge and competence,
> we still can't assume they're using the same definition for a seperate script
> as Unicode does.
I agree with the secon
Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
At 9:43 AM -0700 5/1/04, Peter Kirk wrote:
For the record, I agree that Old Canaanite would be a better name.
The reason for this is not primarily to be more Semito-centric, but
rather to represent better the range of languages covered. For the
same reason, Latin
Dean Snyder a écrit :
But the proposal also says, I believe somewhat contradictorily, in the
technical section:
"4a. The context of use for the proposed characters (type of use; common
or rare)
Phoenician script is proposed to unify Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite,
Punic, Neo-Punic, Phoenician pro
Patrick Andries a écrit :
Roman Script to me is opposed to Latin Script, Uncial Script, Fraktur
Script (all seen as scripts by Daniels & Bright).
P. A.
Recte : opposed to Italic Script, Uncial Script, Fraktur Script.
At 9:43 AM -0700 5/1/04, Peter Kirk wrote:
For the record, I agree that Old Canaanite would be a better name.
The reason for this is not primarily to be more Semito-centric, but
rather to represent better the range of languages covered. For the
same reason, Latin script should not be called Engl
> My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script from Latin.
Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is exactly on-point
to my message--it is useful to distinguish scripts in many cases that Unicode
may not.
--
___
At 00:36 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
including one by Michael Everson.
My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script from Latin.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
> (Note that this site considers "Palaeo" a separate script, this is quite
> clear in the paragraph quoted above.)
And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
including one by Michael Everson. Even if we assume knowledge and competence,
we still can't assume they're usi
Michael Everson wrote at 10:09 AM on Wednesday, April 28, 2004:
>A new contribution
>http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2746
>N2746 Final proposal for encoding the Phoenician script in the UCS
Here follow some remarks of mine on this proposal:
>C2a. Has contact been made to members of the us
80 matches
Mail list logo
