Proposed New Scripts

 

Note: This page has been obsoleted as of 2023-Sep-13. The last substantive update of the page was made in late 2020, after the publication of Unicode 13.0. This page is no longer being used for tracking the ballot and approval status of character proposals. For the best current information about approval status see the Pipeline. For more information about the handling of script proposal review, see the Script Ad Hoc Group.

This page addresses scripts which have been proposed for inclusion in future versions of the Unicode Standard. Some of them may have been approved, but are not yet published. Others are under consideration by the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) for possible future approval. The Unicode Consortium is soliciting review by knowledgeable individuals, scholars or implementers.

This page was last updated 2020-Dec-09.

• Reviewers or prospective implementers should use the contact form to submit additional input on the proposed scripts or their implementations, formal comments, or requests for additional information.
• Detailed status information on all proposed and approved characters, including additions to existing scripts, can be found in the Pipeline Table.
• For more information on the Pipeline Table, the proposal process, and planned use of the remaining code space see About the Pipeline Table.

Caution: use of proposed or accepted characters is at implementers' own risk; the repertoire and allocation of the characters may change before they are adopted in the Unicode Standard. 

Proposals Under Committee Review

For a list of scripts under consideration for possible encoding, see: SEI List of Scripts Not Yet Encoded

Many of the scripts on that page have had preliminary proposals for encoding submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee and/or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2. Links to current proposals are provided when they exist.

Incomplete Proposals

Some of the script encoding proposals are not yet complete, and further information is required in order to evaluate them, so that they may progress toward encoding. They may not yet have undergone technical review, either for lack of relevant expertise or simply because the material itself is exploratory in nature. Expert reviewers of these scripts may be able to work with the proposers by contacting the Script Encoding Initiative.

Review Input Requested: For these proposals, 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.

Complete Proposals

Other scripts have complete formal proposals, with representative glyphs and suggested names for characters, and other information required for their encoding. Usually this includes the required Proposal Summary Form with the information needed by the committees for evaluation.

Review Input Requested: For these proposals the UTC is seeking expert feedback to help assess these proposals for technical correctness and to ensure that there are no oversights or potential implementation problems with the proposed encoding, before the repertoire is formally approved by the UTC and begins its formal balloting process in ISO. Where possible, the UTC is also seeking endorsement of the proposal by any relevant user communities interested in the script, in order to gain an indication of a need for use of the script in Unicode text.

Approved Proposals in ISO Technical Balloting

The following list of scripts have been approved by the UTC and WG2, and SC2 has initiated the process of formal ISO balloting on the proposals, as part of amendments to or new editions of 10646. Such balloting includes ISO committee stage ballots (PDAM or CD) and ISO enquiry stage ballots (DAM or DIS).

Review Input Requested: At this stage, the UTC is seeking final review of the approved proposals, so that any defects can be noted before ballot deadlines, to be reported to WG2 via the Unicode liaison and/or national body comments in time for formal ballot resolution of comments. During these ballots, it is still possible to make technical changes in the amendment content, although major restructuring of script proposals is the exception rather than the rule. Amendments may incorporate a number of separate script proposals in one omnibus ballot, and it is important that feedback at this point refer to the actual amendment text rather than to the original proposal documents that were used by WG2 to prepare the amendment text.

Scripts

None at this time.

Finalized Encoded Scripts in ISO Approval Balloting or Pre-Publication

The following list of scripts have completed their final technical ballots (the ISO enquiry stage DAM or DIS ballots). They are either in non-technical, approval stage ballots (FDAM or FDIS), or are simply awaiting final publication. Implementers can be confident that character code points and names will be unchanged from this point forward. However, it is important to note that any reference to an original proposal document here may not reflect the actually approved final encoding for the characters. If these scripts have not yet been published in a Unicode version, the most accessible and accurate record of approved code points and character names can be found in the corresponding data directory associated with the beta review of the data files of the Unicode Character Database.

Review Input Requested: At this stage, the character allocation and names can no longer be changed, but once a formal beta review period has been announced as a Public Review Issue, the Unicode Technical Committee is seeking the following types of review and feedback from experts and implementers:

• final review of the representative glyphs
• input on character properties contained in the data files for the corresponding next version of the standard. Reviewers familiar with related scripts should compare the property assignments for characters of similar functions for consistency.
• additional information about the script that can be used in the block description
• additional information on the use of characters. This might include description of the usage of certain characters, or samples showing particular use.

Such feedback is, of course, also welcome from any interested experts even at earlier stages in the approval process, before the encoding itself has been finalized. This helps in improving the explanatory text of the standard.

Scripts

None at this time.

---