From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2006 - 12:20:01 CST
> Also, are really the new "Lepcha" (U+1C00..U+1C4F) and "Ol Chiki"
> (U+1C50..U+1C7F) scripts part of Unicode 5.0 BETA?
No, they are not.
> They are missing from the 5.0d1 beta PDF charts
They are not "missing". They are not supposed to be there.
> (or may be they have been delayed...)
They have not been delayed.
Philippe, if you would refer to the 10646 Amendments 2 and 3
*first*, before going on about this, you would sow less confusion.
The contents of Amendment 3 is *NOT* part of Unicode 5.0,
except for 4 Devanagari characters for Sindhi accelerated
into Unicode 5.0.
Amendment 3 is still at its PDAM stage, and has two more
ballots to go, so it would be inappropriate to be including
Lepcha, Ol Chiki, Vai, and Saurashtra into Unicode 5.0 --
they are subject to further review and updates before they
are finished. Furthermore, it is rather likely that at the
WG2 meeting two weeks from now, more characters, or possibly
even entire scripts may be added to Amendment 3.
> This situation seems to have changed sometime (because in the
> past I noted they were scheduled for Unicode 5,
They have *never* been scheduled for Unicode 5.0.
> and now I'm confused with their omission).
> And there has been apparently a big reduction of the number of
> characters in the new Latin Extended-C (U+2C60..U+2C7F) and
> Extended-D (U+A720..U+A7FF) blocks, and I don't know what to think
> about that. May be those characters have been delayed for a future
> version and are still not decided.
There has been no "big reduction". Those characters are either
in Amendment 3 or have yet to be added to *any* amendment for
When using the Pipeline summary on the Unicode website it is
vital that you pay attention to the ISO Status field. If a
character or script is not marked there as being in ISO Status
"Stage 6" then it isn't in Amendment 2, and (with the exception
of the 4 Devanagari additions for Sindhi) won't be going into
> Did you reverify "'Phags-pa" (U+0840..U+087F) and "Saurastra" (U+A880..A8DF)?
> I am for example surprized to see that 'Phags-pa subjoined
> consonnants are not combining:
> U+A867..U+A868, U+A871; as well as the Candrabindu U+A873.
> And I wonder if the Danda-like "shad" punctuation signs
> U+A876..U+A877 should be drawn horizontally in a horizontal
> line layout
Phags-pa is not laid out horizontally.
> or if they would be combining instead,
> below the letters they follow. Their annotated "shad" Tibetan
> equivalents are drawn vertically.
Tibetan is laid out horizontally, not vertically.
> There does seems to be a mix of presentations in the Phags-Pa
> charts between glyphs for the horizontal layout and the vertical layout.
> I am confused now by the absence of Saurastra from the U5 BETA charts.
As above. It isn't in Unicode 5.0.
> Hmm....Definitely, I must reverify all the Unicode 5B2 data. The
> more I look, the more I see differences, removals, subtle additions
> and changes.
No there isn't.
> Unfortunately there's no change history in the beta presentation page
> (it would have saved time, and would have avoided such errors or
> omissions, or could have traced decisions that were already made
> and applied in the BETA)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 14 2006 - 12:25:30 CST