From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 15:01:08 CDT
> > Personally, I think that if nothing else we could and should encode
> > it, but I was shot down.
> And that rationale for not encoding it is what I'm interested in seeing.
If you don't accept the technical argument, as supported by
Patrick, for not encoding undeciphered scripts, then you
can fall back to this rationale:
It was not encoded because consensus could not be obtained
in the two encoding committees to encode it.
That is the ultimate reason why candidate scripts and characters
generally fail to get into the standard.
And the committees are under no obligation to *convince* you that
their technical rationale is airtight, logical, or self-evident.
When groups of technical experts disagree *that* a script should
be encoded, to the extent that they fail to reach a sufficient
level of consensus to pass the various ballots and votes, they
almost invariably also disagree about *why* a script should
(or should not) be encoded, and even disagree about why they
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 15:05:46 CDT