Marco Cimarosti recently said:
> - No presentation glyphs for shapes that can already be obtained using
> regular characters in conjunction with ZWJ or ZWNJ.
Why not just presentation glyphs in general? We seem to have queries about
Indian cojuncts fairly frequently.
Some more suggestions (some of which have covered from other angles already)
- No scripts with a limited body of text in existance. (No need to exchange
or analyse on computer.) E.g. Phaistos disk script
- No scripts which are poorly understood and it is not clear as to what the
characters are. E.g. Rongo-rongo.
- No symbols that are just a picture of something with no other meaning e.g.
a dog. (These tend not to have a fixed conventional form.)
- No symbols that are only used in diagrams rather than running text. e.g.
electrical component symbols.
- No personal, ideosyncratic or company logos. E.g. the artist when he was
not known as Prince.
- No archaic styles of existing characters. E.g. dotless j.
- No control codes for fancy text. E.g. begin bold
- No characters that can be obtained by using a different font with existing
characters and have no semantic difference from the existing characters.
- No proposals to rename existing characters. (But a clarifying note might be added.)
- No proposals to reposition existing characters, e.g. so they sort better.
- No proposals for a newly invented character since putting it in the
standard would help promote its use. (Significant usage must come first.)
-- Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:03:58 EDT