On 20 Aug 2012, at 19:28, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> I seem to recall that there's a definite interest in Mayan numbers that's separate from the script as a whole. In the former group you'll find mathematicians, physicists and astronomers who don't necessarily need the full script, as Mayan scholars or archeologists would. In fact, the Mayan numbers probably have an altogether wider audience.
>
> So why would you hold them back?
Those numbers are part of the script as a whole. I would not want to encode them without having done all the contextual analysis of how they behave within the script -- not just abstractly outside of it.
In the meantime, mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers can use the PUA if they need to implement and exchange data in a UCS context. I would even consider that appropriate for the CSUR, in the short term. The Phaistos Disc, Shavian, and Deseret characters were there for a while before their encoding.
But there is no reason to rush forward encoding a tiny subset of an important and complex script on some assumption that those characters don't interact with other characters in the script in a meaningful way. That is asking for trouble in encoding.
More haste, less speed.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Mon Aug 20 2012 - 13:59:26 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 20 2012 - 13:59:27 CDT