John Jenkins wrote:
> Basically, the place where I personally would draw the line is between
> having a body of people (size left vague) who want to interchange data in
> the script, or if there is a historic body of literature in the script.
I find myself very much in sympathy with this approach.
Trying to define what exactly is a "synthetic script" or an "artificial
script" or a "fictional script", and the like, is all well and good,
but in the end, the definitions, even if you could sort them out,
don't turn into decent policy regarding what to and what not to encode.
It is a very standards-centric bias to think that one can define one's
way out of the problem and then end up with decent guidelines that will
uncontroversially determine the decisions that the encoding committees
must take about what is and is not suitable for encoding.
In practice, it's a big, sloppy world out there of competing usages
and interest groups competing for attention.
Given that not everybody is going to agree on abstract criteria of
"worthiness", I find that falling back on Jenkin's rule of thumb is
a reasonable way to ensure that the committees are focussing on systems
more likely to be useful for the encoding.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Mar 18 2002 - 19:24:37 EST