Re: Unicode & Shorthand?

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Mon Sep 20 2004 - 18:13:32 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Unicode & shorthand? Background"

    >> 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.

    A matter of interpretation, I guess. I was just extending the
    11E00 row labeled "Shorthands" to the blank 11F00 row following

    > 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 ?

    Perhaps. The reason for it being where it is now, however, is
    that the Chinook Jargon ("Kamloops Wawa") orthography is based on
    Duployan shorthand.


    > 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 - 18:18:30 CDT