On 5/16/2012 9:46 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> No, it's not.
>
> Including x in Lao for some pedagogical (I'm guessing) purpose is
> completely out of scope. That'd be like including π in Latin because
> it sometimes occurs in the middle of English text.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That's why properties need well-stated definitions of scope and rules
for default assignment.
Note, I'm deliberatetly writing "rules for default assignments" because
some (not necessarily rare or even few) cases are judgement calls that
cannot be captured by rules. However, clearly stated rules on what the
assignment would be unless overruled by committee action would in itself
guide the committee action as well as the users.
The Script property is defined in that manner in UAX#24, but the wording
around the Script_Extension property in that same UAX is extremely
sketchy and circular (essentially states that Script_Extensions is
what's listed in ScriptExtension.txt).
The existing language should be fixed soonest by providing a more formal
statement, similar to what was done for the Script property itself. That
would go a long way to making sure proposals for changing these
properties for "x" are out of scope.
A./
Received on Thu May 17 2012 - 01:01:50 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu May 17 2012 - 01:01:55 CDT