In message <9711262201.AA27370@unicode.org>
Rick McGowan writes via email@example.com:
> It appears to me there's some interest in dis-unifying Coptic &
> Greek in the standard. Can someone please make a succinct report
> about reasons for keeping them unified, if any? So far I think
> dis-unification sounds like a pretty good thing; and I'm willing to
> entertain proposals.
> Does anyone REALLY object to dis-unifying Coptic and Greek?
I don't object - but at least there's coding supplied for the
repertoire even if you cannot currently get plain text UCS coding for
Greek and Coptic text.
It would also be fairly easy to provide a separate coding for Coptic
characters, and Michael Everson's suggestions are fairly neat in this
regard as the basis for a proposal.
However - let's get some priorities in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2: there
are still several scripts used in official languages in Annex N of
ISO/IEC 10646 that ae used by millions of people worldwide that are
not coded at all, even in amendments, such as Burmese, Khmer, etc.,
which also have fairly neat proposals by Michael Everson.
Let's also get a timescale for dealing with these in JTC1/SC2/WG2,
and get them coded.
In passing, I have also been doing some work on Glagolitic, with a
Glagolitic expert, and will be providing a proposal for the addition
of Glagolitic to ISO/IEC 10646 shortly.
-- John Clews (Chair of ISO/TC46/SC2: Conversion of Written Languages)
SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Road, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, England Email: Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk; tel: +44 (0) 1423 888 432
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT