At 10:18 -0800 2001-12-11, James Kass wrote:
>A standardized encoding for the symbols might do much to help
>researchers and aficionados in their deciphering attempts. But,
>since nothing is really known for certain about the symbols, there
>would be no way to assign properties to the "characters", if they
>are characters.
Re: Phaistos, it's been thought that until a second document comes to
light, there's not much to say.
>I'm curious about the range in the Roadmap reserved for undeciphered
>scripts. Once a script is encoded by the Standard, it's more-or-less
>"carved in stone". What would happen if a script were encoded in that
>range and subsequently became deciphered?
The sky would fall.
>Perhaps instead of reserving an area in the Standard for undeciphered
>scripts, some ad hoc registry for undeciphered scripts could be set
>up for the Private Use Area Plane similar to the ConScript registry
>established for the PUA in the BMP.
Didn't I say I was going to put Phaistos in the ConScript registry? I forgot.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 13:00:10 EST