Re: ConScript registry?

Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:26:54 EST

In a message dated 2001-01-30 15:29:04 Pacific Standard Time, writes:

> > For example, it is easy to
> > find a variety of fonts for fantasy runes or other alphabets that people
> > have created, some based off a description in published fiction, but they
> > have not gotten in touch with CSUR.
> But those are the marginal cases that Unicode doesn't need to worry
> about. They won't mess with Unicode, either. They aren't going to
> be interested or patient enough to fill out the forms.

Right at the moment I am trying to get my own constructed script encoded in
CSUR. Although I would be perfectly willing to fill out the paperwork
required by Unicode and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 (it's not that much really), I
would never actually do so because the script simply doesn't belong in
Unicode/10646. They know it and I know it.

There are plenty of differences between Unicode and CSUR, as others have
mentioned. Unicode is well known and getting better known every day; CSUR is
relatively obscure except to Unicode insiders, people whose scripts have
already been encoded, and probably some who stumble across John's or
Michael's web sites by chance. CSUR is intentionally focused on recently
constructed scripts (as I have suggested before, all scripts are "artificial"
or "constructed" but some gain wider acceptance than others) and so it
naturally contains some scripts of extremely limited use that would not be
candidates for encoding in Unicode. I trust Unicode and WG2 not to accept
just any old script.

Many of the "proposed" but not yet "registered" CSUR scripts were invented by
one guy whose hobby is creating fantasy worlds, languages, and scripts. I
figure my script is just as worthy even though there is no fantasy world
created around it.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:18 EDT