From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 16:42:01 CDT
From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
> >Or shouldn't simply Unicode deprecate script IDs in favor of ISO-15924 codes?
>
> This doesn't make any sense.
May be you don't understand the sense: I do not propose to change the existing
IDs documented in UAX #24. They can stay there because they are already
standard.
But I see little interest in perpetuating a dual encoding system, when it is not
necessary.
ISO-15924 already contains codes for the missing scripts in Unicode. There's
probably no need to reinvent new ones for future scripts so that UAX#24 would
just need to say that all scripts standardized in Unicode that don't have an ID
value in ISO15924 will use instead the 4-letters ISO15924 script code (in that
case, there will be no future additions in the ID column of the ISO-15924
tables.)
This is useful because this means that documents could be already tagged using
the ISO15924 codes when they already ecist, even though they need to be encoded
with PUAs for now in Unicode, and have no script ID property defined on these
characters.
CSS3 uses UAX#24 script IDs, but not the richer palette of ISO-15924 codes (it's
normal because UAX#24 script IDs existed before ISO-15924 was approved and
published).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 16:42:56 CDT