Re: FW: Web Form: Subj: Against Phoenician

2004-05-01 Thread John Cowan
Michael Everson scripsit: Well, when I talk about the historical relationships between the scripts and their glyphs and the family tree and encoding nodes of it with relation to other encoded and not-yet-encoded scripts, those *whys* have been ignored, which is why I said to you,

Re: FW: Web Form: Subj: Against Phoenician

2004-04-30 Thread jcowan
Ego et Michael Everson inter se scripserunt: An alternate version of Michael could present a similarly technically impeccable proposal for Gaelic script, and then the question would be, is it the same as Latin, or is it a separate script requiring a separate encoding? Except that he

Re: Against Phoenician

2004-04-30 Thread Asmus Freytag
While I continue to be convinced that the 22 character repertoire of shapes contained in the proposal is indeed well-known, as asserted by the submitter, I am far less certain now that it would constitute progress to encode these as characters. I would want to see a lot more in terms of

Re: FW: Web Form: Subj: Against Phoenician

2004-04-30 Thread Michael Everson
At 15:57 -0400 2004-04-30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ego et Michael Everson inter se scripserunt: An alternate version of Michael could present a similarly technically impeccable proposal for Gaelic script, and then the question would be, is it the same as Latin, or is it a separate script

Re: Against Phoenician

2004-04-30 Thread Mark Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 2004 Apr 30 14:01 Subject: Re: Against Phoenician While I continue to be convinced that the 22 character repertoire of shapes contained in the proposal is indeed well-known, as asserted by the submitter, I am far less certain now that it would

Re: Against Phoenician

2004-04-30 Thread Michael Everson
At 17:31 -0700 2004-04-30, Mark Davis wrote: I find myself in agreement with Asmus on this. When reading Michael's original proposal, it seemed fairly straightforward; but it is now unclear to me why this necessarily needs to be encoded as a different script than Hebrew. Then you have not been

Re: Against Phoenician

2004-04-30 Thread Michael Everson
Ken Whistler said, trenchantly, to John Cowan in a private message which really bears repeating here: If you *really* think that Sogdian and Punic are the same script and we should just encode them all in Hebrew because we already got a 22-letter abjad, I gotta wonder what you've been smoking