Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 06:54:40 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan"

    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 (personal) (work)
    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