From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 05:27:07 EST
At 01:59 -0800 2003-12-23, Doug Ewell wrote:
>The impression I get, which is probably totally off base, is that when
>Script X is first considered a candidate for possible future encoding,
>Michael or somebody looks around for a big-enough empty spot in the
>Roadmap and says, "Hmm, let's put it... there." There are zones for RTL
>scripts and a rough guideline for zones in the SMP, but in general it's
>pretty much open territory.
You may remember that the Roadmaps were first made by me (not by a
committee), oh, some time back in 1996 or 1997. I am not sure,
actually. Actually I did find some copies of old versions and I
thought I might dust them off and post them to the Roadmap site so
people could see how things evolved, assuming that people care. I'm
not sure when the first Roadmap version that I sent to WG2 was.
Of course at http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/index.html we inform you:
"When scripts are actually proposed to the UTC or to WG2, the
practice is to 'front' them in the zones to which they are
tentatively allocated, and to adjust the block size with regard to
the allocation proposed. The size and location of the unallocated
script blocks are merely proposals based on the current state of
planning. The size and location of a script may change during final
allocation of the script."
>Years later, when some of the adjoining allocations may not have
>gotten off the ground and others have suddenly sprung into being
>(like the FUPA extensions, which IIRC were never roadmapped until
>after they were proposed),
Alphabetic extensions or something was put in about the same time, if
I recall. Usually when something pops up I roadmap it. It helps to
know where things might fit.
>the formal proposal for Script X is written and cites the Roadmap as
>the only justification for the proposed code points, even if there
>might be other reasons supporting (or controverting) that criterion.
The justification is only with regard to what plane the thing is on.
>Usually it doesn't matter what code positions a script gets, as long
>as small alphabets are aligned on a half-block boundary (for SCSU),
>but it might be nice sometimes to see a rationale other than
>"Accordance with the Roadmap," or a short blurb explaining why the
>Roadmap had the script there in the first place.
Might it indeed. :-|
The justification is only with regard to what plane the thing is on.
>This is NOT a huge problem for me, just something I've noticed.
>With all the careful scrutiny that character proposals get, on
>everything from glyphs to properties, the code position assignments
>seem relatively arbitrary.
Ahem. The justification is only with regard to what plane the thing is on.
> > 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.
>
>I didn't see the minutes of the meeting where that decision was made.
>What was the rationale for moving it?
It had been on the Roadmap to the BMP along with some other Brahmic
scripts, and with Tibetan and Mongolian, as far as I recall.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 06:20:28 EST