From: Andrew C. West (andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 04:18:15 EST
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:36:25 -0800, "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>
> > Ancient forms of Aramaic
> > aren't going to be taken up anytime soon for any consideration
> > for encoding. And the Roadmap cannot be taken as a predetermination
> > of the eventual decisions in this regard, in my opinion.
>
> Maybe not as far as whether it will actually be encoded. We do know
> that "Accordance with the Roadmap" is often the sole justification for
> the code positions specified in proposals, as discussed in a thread some
> months ago.
I don't recall that thread, but is there anything intrinsically wrong in
proposing to use the same codepoints for a proposal that are given in the
roadmaps ? I deliberately followed the roadmap codepoints for my recent
'Phags-pa proposal even though I think 'Phags-pa probably belongs in the SMP
(but I don't really care where 'Phags-pa is encoded as long as it is encoded, so
I am happy to defer to Michael, Rick and Ken in this regard); and then WG2 in
their wisdom decided to reallocate the block three rows north of the roadmapped
codepoints ... so maybe you can't assume that roadmap codepoints are carved in
stone.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 04:58:39 EST