Re: Unicode & Shorthand?

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Sep 20 2004 - 16:43:51 CDT

  • Next message: Ernest Cline: "Re: Unicode & Shorthand?"

    At 13:39 -0700 2004-09-20, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    >Michael Everson responded to Christopher Fynn's question:
    >> At 13:46 +0100 2004-09-19, Christopher Fynn wrote:
    > >
    > > >So, am I right in assuming that were someone put together a decent
    > > >proposal for one or more shorthand scripts, there is no particular
    > > >reason in principle why it would be rejected?
    > >
    > > You are right.
    >There is also no particular reason why it would be accepted.
    >For any such proposal there needs to be a case made for why
    >the shorthand should be encoded as Unicode characters.

    You are also right.

    Chinook Wawa comes to mind though. And Sweet's phonetic shorthand has
    some importance.

    >In any case, I consider Unicode encoding of shorthands to be a very
    >low priority, compared to the effort needed for some well-known
    >minority and historic scripts which are still unencoded.

    Hear, hear.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 20 2004 - 16:48:55 CDT