From: Luke-Jr (luke@dashjr.org)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2011 - 14:07:48 CST
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:28:13 pm Michael Everson wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2011, at 15:29, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > While I agree that in this day and age, characters NOT being in Unicode
> > is itself a huge barrier to widespread adoption, I also feel the
> > ConScript Unicode Registry ( http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/ )
> > could be a reasonable middle-ground.
> > The problem is that it seems to no longer be maintained--
> > still missing any mention of the proposed Tonal encoding I submitted
> > about 4 months ago using the E9D0-E9EF range.
>
> Oh. That wasn't a ConScript, so it was out of scope.
The dictionary disagrees.
conscript: a conscripted person (as a military recruit)
Assuming a shortening of "constructed script"...
script:
1
a : something written : text b : an original or principal instrument or
document c (1) : manuscript 1 (2) : the written text of a stage play,
screenplay, or broadcast; specifically : the one used in production or
performance
2
a : a style of printed letters that resembles handwriting b : written
characters : handwriting c : alphabet
Finally, there are precedents in (at least) Tengwar, Engsvanyali, Kinya, Syai,
Verdurian, Xaini, Mizarian, Zirinka, Thelwik, Olaetyan, and probably numerous
other CSUR allocations.
Or do you dispute that Mr. Nystrom constructed it? This claim would IMO be
obviously ridiculous.
Quite frankly, this response, in addition to being in the wrong forum (the
actual submission going completely ignored) looks like an excuse for a
personal closed-mindedness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 10 2011 - 14:10:41 CST