Re: ISO-15924 script nodes and UAX#24 script IDs

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 14:08:48 CDT

  • Next message: fantasai: "Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))"

    Philippe said:

    >- The ISO-15924 text incorrectly references the
    >IDs "Old Italic", "Linear B", "Canadian
    >Aboriginal" with spaces, but the actual script
    >IDs as defined in UAX #24 use underscores.

    If this is true Mark Davis needs to tell me and I will change it.

    >- Unicode already defines three script ids that
    >have no correspondance in ISO-15924: "Limbe",
    >"Tai Le", Cypriot". Should there exist now a
    >request to map these scripts with IDs in

    Limb, Tale, Cprt!

    >- Isn't the Unicode script ID "Common" mapping
    >to the ISO-15924 code "Zyyy" (N°=998) for
    >undetermined script?

    Common isn't undetermined. Undermined is for the
    librarian who doesn't know Klingon when she reads

    >- Should there exist a "Zwww" code in ISO 15924
    >for the Unicode "Inherited" script ID?

    No. It is not a "script" as defined in ISO 15924.
    But Unicode uses a Private Use Code for that,
    which is proper.

    >Many ISO-15924 code exist that are candidate for
    >encoding within Unicode with their own script ID
    >to be defined later.


    > > 100;Mero;Meriotic;méroïtique
    >> 115;Phnx;Phoenician;phénicien
    >> 120;Tfng;Tifinagh (Berber);tifinagh (berbère)
    >> 140;Mnda;Mandaean;mandéen //Is it same as Mende "Kikakui"
    >> Syllabic?

    No, it isn't. And your application for that code
    contained no evidence as to what it referred to,
    so we aren't doing anything about it until there
    is more evidence. You will need to supply that in
    the online proposal form, NOT on the general
    discussion list.

    > > 282;Plrd;Pollard Phonétic;phonétique de Pollard
    >> 300;Brah;Brahmi;brâhmî
    >> 360;Java;Javanese;javanais
    >> 365;Batk;Batak;batak
    >> ...
    >> and many others that are in the Unicode roadmap.
    >> For these scripts, does Unicode need to define its own script ID?

    Unicode can't do that (sensibly) until they are encoded.

    >Or shouldn't simply Unicode deprecate script IDs in favor of ISO-15924 codes?

    This doesn't make any sense.

    >This may be important because UAX#24 is a
    >normative reference in the W3C CSS3
    >specification, and may be the existing Unicode
    >IDs should become aliases of ISO-15924 codes. Or
    >a policy could be created so that any future
    >script added in Unicode will be encoded by
    >assigning script IDs equal to their existing
    >ISO-15924 4-letter code (needed for the
    >stability of CSS3), and should ensure that a
    >proper assignment will be requested to ISO-15924
    >for each encoded script (such as "Tai_Le").

    We seem to be doing that anyway.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 14:10:11 CDT