On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 jarkko.hietaniemi@nokia.com wrote:
>This is true. But unless someone formally proposes the missing
>characters, they won't appear in the Unicode. Us Tolkien fans cannot be
>blamed for Japanese standards organisations, I think :-)
Precisely. There is no inherent reason why formal proposals couldn't be
submitted by anyone with expertise in a given writing system. The question
then becomes, is there a bottleneck somewhere in the allocation pipeline,
and if so, where exactly? If there is, we might argue that scripts have to
be prioritized. But..
If such a bottleneck has formed inside Unicode Consortium and/or ISO, we
have to wonder whether those organizations have the requisite capacity to
manage a standard as important as Unicode. If the bottleneck is in lacking
proposals, this cannot be used as a reason not to include synthetic
scripts which *do* have a standing proposal.
I don't really see a place for prioritization based counter-arguments wrt
inclusion of synthetic scripts in Unicode.
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 11:19:54 EST