Dean A. Snyder wrote:
>
> I hope you are not proposing, in principle, that we just go ahead and encode
> every "non-scholarly" but popular script system supported by some computer
> software somewhere, even if the users who have the most interest vested in
> the encoding are the scholars themselves (and they are saying the state of
> the art prevents a useable encoding at the time). I think that would be
> reckless - particularly if it would jeapordize a useable encoding in the
> future for the very community that needs it the most.
>
It would be reckless, so it's just as well that nobody is
proposing such a thing. Having issues with the repertoire
isn't the same as having concerns with the encoding structure
and approach. The first proposal on a script encoding is
usually treated as exploratory and there is then a review
and revise process that eventually works into something
which will become standardized. The wording of the
Egyptian Hieroglyphic proposal makes it clear that the
author intended for it to be preliminary and invited
input and suggestion.
Best regards,
James Kass.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT