[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 necessarily the best encoding for the Mesha Stele, but I'm certainly not convinced that there is anything improper about it, or that having a separate encoding for those glyphs would be more proper.
There's nothing improper about transliteration. Likewise, the Phoenician inscription of Edessa in Macedonia could be easily encoded using existing Hebrew code points, even though its language is Greek.
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' script is identical to the Hebrew script, the differences in letterforms being merely glyphic variants. The contra-argument disagrees with your premise that encoding the Mesha Stele with Hebrew characters is transliteration. You can't proceed past that argument simply by restating your premise.
I'm not saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the contra-argument, but don't think you can duck the argument by begging the question.
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
