> [Original Message]
> From: Patrick Andries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Ernest Cline a �crit :
>
> >No more so than Japanese becomes a different language when written
> >as romanji. Language and script are distinct and a given language is
> >often encoded using several different scripts. There may be points
> >against favoring writing Paleo-Hebrew with a Phoenician script instead
> >of the Hebrew script, but this isn't one of them.
>
> Well, since this seems to be the center of some controversy, isn't the
> methodology one should adopt to ask what the community of users thinks :
> is this for you (plural) two different scripts or are those just
> stylistic variations of the same script (Hebrew). The community of users.
>
> And then to record this as an encoding guideline in the proposal
> ("Paleo-Hebrew texts should be encoded using Phoenician codepoints" or
> ""for Paleo-Hebrew texts texts should be encoded using the Hebrew
> codepoints").
>
> I don't really know, I just wish we could reconcile both sides here ;-)
How about the following:
When deciding how to encode ancient scripts in Unicode, sometimes
arbitrary distinctions must be made between scripts that had a
continuous evolution from one form into another. Depending upon
the point of view of the author, a text written in a transitional form,
such as Paleo-Hebrew, might be encoded in Unicode as either
of the two scripts that it serves as a bridge between, in this case,
Phoenician and Hebrew.
Depending upon how the passions run, this might mollify both sides
or it might make them both madder than they are. :)
