<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>(KRI I, 4)<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b class=""><span lang="EN-GB" class="">7) What are the “square groups”?</span></b></p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span>I provided the definition agreed on — I think — by everyone, if you have a better one, I’m listening of course.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">see above.</div><div class="">And see my "Second" introductory point in the previous email: it is not a question of finding the "right" definition (as there isn't any). It is a question of finding the *most efficient* definition in order to efficiently reach our goal of having a working system of unicode-based hieroglyphs that can be used by the *whole* Egyptological community (and not only by a handful of people working on a specific corpus or database, and on his respect, to respond to you last remark..).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but if Unicode is not to be useful for the majority of egyptologists, so be it. It will remain what it is, a standard not used by the community: Journals, Corpora, etc. will keep on using JSESH and other tools, they’re doing well with it. </div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Perhaps the opposite should also be considered? perhaps the unicode-based system to write hieroglyphs (considering that the very idea at the basis of unicode is to make writing standardized and accessible to as many people as possible) should indeed aim at being useful for the majority of the Egyptologists (corpus-linguists as well as all the other thousands of non-corpus-linguist egyptologists), and if some team working with some specific database should have some specific need that cannot be satisfied with such a standard unicode system, then perhaps it is them who should use other tools?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I guess this is an option that should be considered.. no?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>We are talking about feelings and different perceptions here, so it’s hard to be objective. My own view (admittedly subjective) is as follows: most Egyptologists (publishing texts, monuments, etc) will never be happy with what Unicode has to offer, because this is not precise enough at multiple levels (Nigel expressed this position multiple times during the meeting for instance). On the other hand, grammarians (broadly speaking) and people working on corpora are probably the ones who are the more open to standardization (hieroglyphs were not even there in the TLA at the beginning). I see this community (much more than historians, etc.) as intensive users of Unicode: using it for exchanging texts, publishing volumes, creating Online resources, etc. I feel like we are very much in favor of standardization and striving for making resources accessible; two goals of Unicode, as you mentioned.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>These resources should be there for lasting, it would be a pity not to think about the standard carefully before going in any direction.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>That’s all folks!</div><div>Have a nice weekend,</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Stéphane</div></body></html>