At 12:36 -0700 2001-04-24, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > They are worried about the repertoire. The Manual de codage *coding
>> conventions*, as used to manipulate the characters, are implemented
>> in a number of software packages on Mac and PC, have not been
>> criticized.
>
>O.k. I will start the process of criticizing the *coding conventions*
>as related to the encoding proposal, on the appropriate forums.
Great. That would be egyptian@unicode.org. (Future postings on this
topic should occur there, methinks.)
> > KEN! KEN! These are repertoire issues.
>
>Yes, they are. And you have to engage the people who have issues with
>the repertoire, if you want a compromise proposal to move forward.
I wrote a WG2 response to their repertoire objections explaining just this.
> > In N1944 I present 761 "basic" characters, 40 formatting characters,
> > and 4548 "extended" characters. Now the basic characters belong to
>> the Gardiner set, which is by far and away the most commonly known
>> set of characters. This is the set you find expounded in all the
>> basic grammars and all the introductory books you buy in museums and
>> library exhibitions and so on.
>
>Yes, no issue with that characterization.
OK, good to see we have agreement on that.
> > The Germans have told us that people are working on a bigger set of
>> extended characters, where unifications and splits are to be
>> identified. Fine, I have no objection to waiting a decade for
>> Egyptian Hieroglyphs Extension A to be ready for encoding.
>
>That is an important distinction then to make clear to WG2 and
>to the German Egyptologists, as well as to UTC, as it significantly
>changes the scope of what you are pushing for now.
I've been pushing for this since I wrote my response in
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2132.htm (1999-10-04!).
> > That wouldn't apply to the Gardiner set. This is SO widespread (and
>> relatively small) that even if there are some splits or unifications
> > in it, it is worth encoding each of them anyway.
>
>This is a limited point which could be used as the basis for
>making progress. If you focus on this point, and engage in the
>discussion on it with the objectors, it could sway a compromise
>that would get the Gardiner set encoded more quickly.
I'm hoping for this. I have discussed this with Carl-Martin and he
seems to be of the same opinion.
> > Consider those to be
>> like simplified and traditional Chinese. Now, the rest of the set,
>> the much larger set, that SHOULD wait for the scholars to be happy
>> with it. The amateur community, the enthusiast community, and the
>> community of first-year students of Egyptian don't need that set.
>> They need the Gardiner set.
>
>Agreed.
Again, it's good to see agreement here.
-- Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Mob +353 86 807 9169 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Vox +353 1 478 2597 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT