From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 27 2004 - 13:22:52 CDT
Eric Muller wrote:
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin
>> script for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode
>> support it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode
>> supports the Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's the
> Latin n with descender, which is not encoded but needed according to
So we verify that it's true, and encode it. Why should Russia care?
(It's not even in the Cyrillic block) It sounds like we've heard
evidence that this isn't an idiosyncratic usage by one or two people,
and there are folks who use this orthography. If it's in use, or if it
*was* in use, Unicode has to support it.
There's always a higher bar for proving that something should *not* be
encoded, as we saw already with Phoenician. If a sizable minority of
people use it, what's the harm? We're not hurting for codepoints. I
haven't seen much argument on the only substantive questions: do these
letter actually occur and is the orthography actually being used.
That's really all that matters to the decision. I've seen some weak
"yes" answers to the second question, one "yes" for the first, but not
much in terms of evidence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 13:24:15 CDT