From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 05 2006 - 18:52:44 CST
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> John H. Jenkins wrote:
> > I would be perfectly happy with this, BTW. IMHO the disk is unlikely to
> > be deciphered and I doubt we'll ever see another example, so
> > functionally the elements can be treated as symbols without full support
> > for them as a developed writing system. If and when I'm proven wrong,
> > we can revisit the issue.
> That's my primary concern. Can we revisit the issue?
> I don't mind
> encoding the characters, but it seems extremely unwise to assign them
> irrevocable categories until we know more about the script.
There is nothing irrevocable about assigning a character gc=So and then
later deciding it should be gc=Lo.
If you want a case to prove the point, consider
2132;TURNED CAPITAL F;So;0;ON;;;;;N;TURNED F;;;;
UnicodeData-5.0.0d10.txt (not yet released, but in beta):
2132;TURNED CAPITAL F;Lu;0;L;;;;;N;TURNED F;;;214E;
That because it was discovered that this was the uppercase we
needed for the Claudian letter. It changed in General_Category and
it got the case mapping to the new lowercase character encoded.
(And also changed bidi category.)
There is also nothing revocable about not deciding to give some
character a specific new value for the Script property. If
someone proves a true requirement for a Script=Phaistos value,
nothing is stopping the addition of that at some point in
the future. I just don't see any clear requirement being
There are things which can*not* be changed once decided.
Among those are code points, character names, and decomposition
mappings (or lack thereof). But General_Category and Script
property values are not subject to such absolute stability
> Personally I
> do think we'll one day have more examples of this script. If I were sure
> that wouldn't happen, I'd say go ahead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 05 2006 - 18:58:35 CST