From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 23:43:12 CDT
Bob Richmond, wearing a shirt that says "saqqara" <saqqara at csi dot
com> wrote:
> While we are here, will Coptic disunification imply restoration of
> Coptic to the ISO-15924 list (it was there at one time, number 205 in
> a 1998 draft) or will you stick with private use Qaac per UTR #24?
I hadn't noticed that Coptic had been removed. I should check these
lists more carefully.
Michael will undoubtedly have his reasons, but it certainly does seem
strange to talk about Coptic being disunified from Greek while at the
same time its ISO 15924 code has been removed -- implying a conscious
decision, not like it was just overlooked -- especially when variants of
Latin and Syriac do have codes but are not considered different scripts.
"Qaac" for Coptic isn't in the current UAX #24 sample list, which was
pared down to prevent people like me from thinking it was a complete
normative list, but it was in the previous version (which was a UTR).
Funny moment: The Unicode Web site search engine couldn't find this
earlier version, nor any other text containing the string "Qaac," but it
did helpfully report that "English does not appear to be the language of
your Search Phrase." Gee, you don't think?
At least "Qaac" doesn't conflict with any of my suggested ISO 15924
private-use codes for ConScript. :-)
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 18 2004 - 23:45:15 CDT