Re: ConScript

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Jun 01 2002 - 21:37:33 EDT

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

> Please note that ConScript is for fun. It is for play. It is not to
> be taken seriously. It is an experiment to see whether people
> interested in some of those scripts will agree to use PUA to exchange
> data. Interestingly, some folks have for Shavian. No one seems to for
> Tengwar.

A note on Shavian: Since its ConScript encoding seems to be more widely
used than any other, I would like to suggest that Ewellic be moved to
some other block besides the one "formerly" occupied by Shavian. "Old"
implementations don't disappear overnight; just ask John Jenkins.

Reserving a formerly used allocation for a period of time to avoid such
conflicts is a reasonable policy used by, for example, the ISO 639 and
3166 maintenance agencies (ignoring, for the moment, the allocation of
ROU in ISO 3166 that violated that MA's own policy).

> Of course Shavian implementations should be upgrading to Unicode
> encoding now. :-)

No, they shouldn't. Shavian is not in the current version of Unicode
(3.2). I got smacked upside the head on this list once for suggesting
that a character be used before "its" version of Unicode had been
released. Shavian has been in the pipeline for 5 years now, and is a
shoo-in to be encoded in Unicode 4.0, but implementers are not supposed
to use that encoding yet except for private testing.

For that reason, I suggest not only that Ewellic be relocated to some
block in ConScript besides U+E700 (U+E830 or U+E840 seems reasonable),
but that the original registration of Shavian be restored until the
release of Unicode 4.0 next year. Shavian shouldn't be kicked out of
ConScript until Unicode is ready to take it.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Jun 01 2002 - 20:04:54 EDT