Re: Unicode & Shorthand?

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Mon Sep 20 2004 - 17:50:40 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Unicode & Shorthand?"

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Kenneth Whistler <>
    > For whoever said that shorthands weren't roadmapped, that
    > isn't completely correct. There is no specific allocation
    > for Gregg or Pitman or any other particular system, but
    > 11E00..11FFF is currently blocked out for shorthands, simply
    > as a placeholder to indicate that we know such systems
    > exist and that somebody might bring forth a proposal and
    > that if successful, such a proposal would require some
    > codespace allocation.

    That isn't the allocation shown on:
    which shows 11E00..11EFF.

     From a logical point of view, wouldn't shorthands fit better
    in the Notational systems (1D000..1FFFD ) superblock than
    in the African and other syllabic scripts ( 11800..11FFF)
    superblock ? There is plenty of space in either superblock,
    altho the notational systems superblock has more space
    on both an absolute and a percentage basis.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 20 2004 - 17:57:30 CDT