From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon Sep 20 2004 - 16:43:51 CDT
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 * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 20 2004 - 16:48:55 CDT