Dean,
Dean Snyder wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 2:35 PM on Friday, May 21, 2004:
<snip>
Can we live cosmetic issues like the name out of it? OK, so "Hebrew" is really "Jewish Aramaic," and it's ironic that we're working on encoding a Samaritan block distinct from the Hebrew block. Lots of things are badly named, and bad names sometimes stick. But naming issues like this (what do we name this block? That name is a bad choice...) are irrelevant to the discussion. They just make the discussions longer, but don't affect the validity of anything. If it makes you feel better, pretend that the blocks are named things like U+05D0, and so are the letters.
You're missing my point. I don't really care that it's called Hebrew; but I suspect that OTHERS do and that is one motivation (maybe even a subconscious one) behind a separate Phoenician proposal.
Sigh, how tiresome. Am I now going to be treated to an entire thread on the motivations, subconscious or otherwise, for Unicode proposals or defense of existing blocks?
There are NO, repeat NO proposals or existing blocks that are not the sum of our experiences, conscious or otherwise.
It is silly to pretend otherwise and rude to speculate on the motivations of others, even by implication.
Ken Whistler has on occassion tried to get this discussion back towards Unicode and and this sort of post is taking a different path.
I would really like to see posts concerning Unicode issues when I open my inbox tomorrow.
Hope everyone is looking foward to a great weekend!
Patrick
-- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
