Re: Inherited-script characters

From: Mark Davis (
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 18:29:16 EST

  • Next message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: Characters for Cakchiquel"

    Thanks for reminding me; an note was to be added to that effect. I've added
    that to a new version, and sent it to the editorial committee for checking.
    Should be live early next week.

    IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
    (408) 256-3148
    fax: (408) 256-0799

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Doug Ewell" <>
    To: "Unicode Mailing List" <>; "Mark Davis"
    Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 17:31
    Subject: Inherited-script characters

    > Last December, Mark Davis indicated that a passage similar to the
    > following would (or should) be added to UTR #24, "Script Names":
    > > Whatever their script property values, characters with general
    > > categories of Mn and Me should also inherit their script from their
    > > base character. The nominal script property value for these characters
    > > may be different from INHERITED in cases where the best interpretation
    > > of that character in isolation would be a specific script.
    > This meant that implementations would need to take the General Category,
    > not just the script name, into account when interpreting UTR #24 (now
    > proposed to be upgraded to a UAX). This is a reasonable change, but a
    > change nonetheless. I complained briefly about the extra overhead, then
    > got over it and added it to my "Scripts" program.
    > In the proposed update to #24, I don't see anything about treating
    > characters with a General Category of "Mn" or "Me" differently. Was the
    > change scuttled, or just overlooked?
    > -Doug Ewell
    > Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 19:00:20 EST