Mark Davis wrote:
The question for me is whether the scholarly representations of the Phoenician would vary enough that in order to represent the palÃo-Hebrew (or the other language/period variants), one would need to have font difference anyway. If so, then it doesn't buy much to encode separately from Hebrew. If not, then it would be reasonable to separate them.
Given the sophistication of today's font technology, I don't think the encoding question can be addressed in this way. Regardless of whether 'Phoenician' letterforms are separately encoded, it is perfectly easy to include glyphs for these and for typical Hebrew square script (or any of a number of other different Hebrew script styles) in a single font. If the 'Phoenician' forms are not separately encoded, they can still be accessed as glyph variants using a variety of different mechanisms. The question is whether the distinction is necessary in plain text.
John Hudson
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants
to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win.
And I succeed sometimes
In making him win.
- Charles Peguy
