Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 1/21/2004 8:00:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
06PETERSON AT cua.edu writes:

> 
> >If Semitists have got on
> >without such devices, it is only because they have not tried to
> >reproduce BDB with computer technology but have allowed their
> >publications to be less multi-script than they used to be.
> 
> As I say, I'm pretty sure that Sokoloff did not use Unicode in producing 
> his 
> 
> second dictionary. I might add that Peter Daniels has worked extensively on 
> producing fonts, for the express purpose of publishing in multiple scripts. 
> When he says that Unicode is not necessary for Semitists, he is speaking 
> from 
> a knowledge of what it takes to publish with computer fonts.
> 

________

Is unicode necessary to the production of such texts?  No.  Is it a 
preferable solution?  Yes.  The question is that of standards and of 
scholarly 
preference for the native script.  The old SIL fonts used a different coding 
from the 
SP fonts which again was different from . . . ad inifinitum.  With unicode it 
doesn't matter whether you have the same font as the author.  It is only 
necessary that it cover the same language area.  A unicode font which covers 
polytonic Greek will properly produce a completely different unicode font 
covering 
the same area.  Personally, I hate transcription.  I refuse to use it.  There 
have even been occassions when I've used my unicode word processor to convert 
transliterated text before I even attempted to read it.

gfsomsel