Date: Sat Dec 27 2008 - 07:12:03 CST
Quoting "David Starner" <email@example.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Mark E. Shoulson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And I, too, am frustrated that such things get pushed through when actual
>> scripts in use to write language go begging.
> Personally? Which unencoded scripts out there actually have existing
> fonts and typesetting systems (i.e. real users who really want to use
> them on the computer)? Tengwar? Klingon? Egyptian Hieroglyphics? I am
> frustrated that so many would prefer to encode scripts that have
> audiences of less than a hundred people over characters that would be
> of great use to millions.
Egyptian Hieroglyphs are effectively enocded.
The most extensive unencoded set of characters I know of yet to be
encoded are the CJK characters used by Zhuang people, population over
15 million. The difficulties involved regarding font making and IME,
being one reason for encoding. Presently each publisher uses there own
ad hoc system. Though in the almost in the pipeline they will not
become part of Unicode for about ten years. I am sure others can name
other significant scripts still yet to be encoded.
Setting aside questions about rich text vs plain text for the moment.
If a fraction of the resources used on promoting the encoding "emoji"
had been used to promote Zhuang CJK characters the situation would be
very different. Much the same could be say of other unencoded
characters and scripts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST