Date: Wed Apr 30 2008 - 05:20:32 CDT
Quoting Andrew West <email@example.com>:
> 2008/4/29 Benjamin M Scarborough <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> John H. Jenkins said:
>> > So are you looking to foster discussion on the subject? Or are you
>> > trying to get the UTC to make the addition?
>> I'm trying to foster discussion to get an idea of whether the
>> disunification is appropriate. I'm pretty sure it is, but someone on
>> the Unicode mailing list may have some good reason it isn't.
> I don't know, how about
> --invalidation of all existing data that uses this old Zhuang orthography,
> --no obvious benefit to the user community (not that there is a big
> user community since the orthography has now been superseded),
There is virtually no user community for this script - the script was
revised an tone 3 replaced by j and tone 4 by x.
Also as Ken mentions usage has defined early on in unicode, and the
obviously missing characters encoded.
To make such a change would create problems for existing digital
documents, the existing encoding model is certainly adequate for
current needs, and needs for the forseeable future.
I have never heard a Zhuang person express this as a matter of
concern, though I have heard concern expressed over the many Zhuang
CJK ideographs yet to be encoded (this is being worked on but is a
somewhat slow process).
> --no request for disunification from the representatives of the user
> community (i.e. China).
> At any rate, if you want to take this further you will need to read
> Annex F "Formal criteria for disunification" of the Principles and
> Procedures document
> and assess the costs and benefits of disunification in this case.
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 07:31:13 CDT