Re: Everson's Ahom proposal

From: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:41:00 -0700

From: John H. Jenkins <>

> Per the Pending scripts page on the Unicode Web site
> (

> "Review Input Requested: For these proposals [including Ahom], the UTC is
> seeking expert feedback to assist in completing the proposals to the level
> where a well-formed encoding can be technically evaluated, and where there
> can be reasonable assurance that at least the basic repertoire is presented
> concisely and completely in a manner consistent with the encoding practices
> of the committees."
> In general, neither WG2 nor the UTC is comfortable encoding a script if only
> encoding experts (e.g., Michael Everson) are involved. Scripts are intended
> to represent the needs of user communities, and it's really those communities
> and other experts in the script itself who need to follow through to make
> sure a script gets encoded. Michael (and other people) are experts in the WG2
> and UTC processes and can help the user communities navigate those processes.
> The UTC and WG2 have learned, however, that unless actual users of a script
> are involved, it's just too likely that there will be mistakes made which are
> difficult to correct later.
> And no, it wouldn't have been encoded any faster if it had been submitted to
> ISO instead of Unicode. All scripts are encoded via a cooperative process
> involving both.
> =====
> 井作恆
> John H. Jenkins

More to the point, that is not a proposal. Not even close. It should be considered the moral equivalent of ¿red type? on the roadmap - we have some idea of what the character repertoire should be, but all the work needs to be done to get this even considered, let alone approved.

Received on Wed Jun 15 2011 - 11:46:21 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jun 15 2011 - 11:46:32 CDT