Subject:
Re: The politics of Unicode (was: an endlessly coruscating
threa
---------------------------------
Ken Whistler wrote:
>Michael Everson gave pretty much the entire list of
problematical unifications. (There are a few others that are
notable problems for
rendering, such as baseline ellipsis versus midline ellipsis.)
All
of these are under debate, and there are no foregone
conclusions for any of them.
I seemed to have missed that. Can you give me a clue in finding
it?
>I'm willing to state that the vast proportion of everything in
Latin that needs to be represented is already representable.
>There are known specific holes. Michael Everson and the
Finnish and Swedish NB's are working on an explicit Finno-Ugric
Phonetic Alphabet proposal; we are aware that FUPA is not yet
fully covered. But that is the kind of place you have to go to
find holes in the Latin coverage -- not national or minority
language orthographies.
I'm not so sure that there isn't anything from minority
languages; I suspect a small number of add'l needs, though I
don't yet have good information to offer.
>That's the *Tifinagh* script. And no you wouldn't. The actual
Tamazight language promotion efforts on the web are working to
standardize the Latin form. Look them up. The Tifinagh script
has a certain iconic importance to Berbers, and does appear,
but is mostly of scholastic interest, and is not being pushed
strongly by those building Tamazight websites.
Could it be that it's not being used for websites for lack of
standard implementation? I have a slight awareness of some
current usage of Tifinagh script in at least Niger and Burkina
Faso (slight in the sense that I know it's being used but I
don't know any details).
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT