From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 05:12:57 CDT
From: "Doug Ewell" <email@example.com>
> Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> > If so, why not reserving all codes starting by "Qa" for private use?
> > This would give 676 rows, whose only 50 first ones have a standard
> > 3-digits numeric code, and could allow librarians to create their own
> > private references by giving them full freedom on the last 2 letters
> > of alphabetic codes, so that they could use them mnemonically (for now
> > all they have is "aa" to "az" and ba" to "bx").
> Just allow any of the Qa codes to be associated with any of the numeric
> codes 900-949, with no prior restrictions. That's the way normal ISO
> 15924 codes work.
I was rather thinking about NOT defining any numeric code for all private
4-Letters codes Qaby-Qazz, but letting the implementation choosing its own
private numeric codes *out of* the restricted 3-digits space 000-999.
There will still be a limited interchangeability of numeric codes 900-959
associated with alpha codes Qaaa-Qabx, but no What I would like to see is a
larger set of alpha codes for local use. Allowing all Qaaa-Qazz would match this
need, with 676 possible codes, of which the first 50 are unambiguously mapped to
numeric codes 900-949, and mapping the remaining 626 codes above 999 (but
starting at which value? Will there be an extension with 4-digits codes?).
Or possibly allocating a better private 4-letters space which won't have
"mnemonic" use for future standard scripts, for example Qqaa-Qqzz (for example
if one wants to encode a (conjectured) "Qatari" variant of Arabic or
South-Arabian with a later standard code "Qata" which would fall in the previous
With a larger space explicitly allocated, there will never be any conflict with
future standard codes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 05:13:16 CDT