Re: Mandombe

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:18:01 -0700

On 6/10/2012 12:48 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2012, at 00:45, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>> On 6/9/2012 3:30 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> One thing I would consider is the fact that most of the "new" scripts which have been encoded experienced stages of development. Bamum, for instance. Something as complex (and arguably unwieldy) as this one... we would want to see some practical examples of how and where it is in use by more than the inventor.
>> Put that way, yes definitely - +1, (+100).
>> A./
>> PS: here the claim is use in schools etc.
> Great! Let's see how the children actually write it.

This is interesting only if the encodable elements would be different -
remember, Unicode is not a font standard.

This script has some unusual features which might lead to a paticular
encoding that might not survive (unmodified) certain changes.

This is line and unlike Latin (considering only the core alphabet).
There, some changes in elements did occur over time i/j u/v and w.
However, rather extreme changes brought on by change in writing
materials (first parchment then print) did not find their reflection in
a change of elements.

If there is an extensive user base, you don't have the luxury to wait
for the next generation of users to grow up before you encode.

It would be tantamount to excluding this population of users from
digital communication (as "nobody" will support a conscript for mass
deployment). There would also be massive legacy issues once the script
was finally encoded in a standardized manner after decades of use.

So, once there is proof of substantial use, all these qualms are
theoretical - the practical necessity will be to encode what you can.

Received on Mon Jun 11 2012 - 01:24:26 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 11 2012 - 01:24:34 CDT