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 between U+10143 ATTIC ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIVE and U+1015F TROEZENIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIVE or between the characters 10144 ATTIC ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY, U+10166 TROEZENIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY TYPE ONE , U+10167 TROEZENIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY TYPE TWO and U+10168 HERMIONIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL FIFTY so these can only be there for epigraphic needs. So, the difference between epigraphic needs and palaeographic needs is where you seem to be drawing the line between what is acceptable to encode and what is not Both seem to be a matter of shape.- but one is a mater of different shapes and the other variations of a single shape regards - Chris "Dean Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 useful for epigraphers, not paleographers. > > The Greek acrophonic characters accepted into Unicode are exactly that, > characters - useful in epigraphy but worthless for paleography, because > they do not encode multiple glyphic variants of the same character. > Compare, for example, "Epidaurean Acrophonic Symbol Two" which is 2 dots > versus "Thespian Acrophonic Symbol Two" which is a crooked line. What > would serve the needs of paleographers would be the encoding of all the > glyphic variants of the "Thespian Acrophonic Symbol Two". Unicode will > not encode that, nor should it.
