From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 00:01:35 CDT
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> Unicode itself does not define scripts. It just uses one or more ISO
> 15924 "scripts" (écriture) to unify them into the same "Unicode script
> block" by sharing the same code points for characters considered,
> bibliographically, as distinct due to their legibility.
"I have a very bad feeling about this!"
-- Captain Rex, from the "Star Tours" ride at Disneyland
> May be Unicode could be more clear, now that ISO 15924 is well
> standardized and published, by stating clearly which ISO15924 scripts
> are supported, and how they are grouped/unified (this would be in
> addition to the description of scripts in each chapter of the
> standard; instead of just naming the supported scripts, the normative
> ISO 15924 codes could be explicitly stated; the chapter on the Unicode
> support for Latin scripts would say clearly that "Latf" is unified
> within "Latn".
Anything like this would have to be reconciled with the use of ISO 15924
script codes in UAX #24, "Script Names." The two uses are not the same.
Speaking of which, I'm still not happy with the silent change in the
Unicode interpretation, introduced in version 4.0.1, of the 15924 code
Old meaning: Hiragana AND Katakana; text contains characters from both
New meaning: Hiragana OR Katakana; text contains specific modifier
letters that could apply to either syllabary.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT