From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 06:54:40 CDT
On 20/05/2005 11:27, James Kass wrote:
>>what letters are
>>to be considered as meaningful and what letters are pure fantasy.
>So far, Unicode hasn't encoded any fantasy scripts.
Well, Klingon has been rejected, but Deseret and Shavian have been
encoded although I am unaware of any non-fantasy use of these scripts,
and Tengwar and Cirth, which are certainly fantasy scripts, are roadmapped.
But I think Alexander's point was more that some individual fantasy
characters have been encoded, i.e. characters for which there is no
proper evidence of use as distinct characters. His contribution to this
list is upper case Glagolitic. I am sure that others can make other
suggestions. I expect that every case will be debatable, but I am sure
that at least a few characters have crept in which in fact should never
have been encoded - even if we don't count those which have canonical
decompositions like the presentation forms.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.13 - Release Date: 19/05/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 06:55:14 CDT