Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

From: Sinnathurai Srivas (
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 18:05:15 CDT

  • Next message: Alexander Kh.: "Re: All hail Cyril and Methodius!"

    I'm thinking of creating a font to represent ancient sindu symbols/alphabet.
    Sindu is probably the worlds first part Graphimic part alphabet writing
    system, probably used to enhance all other writing systems lately.

    I do not mind if it is treated only as graphemes or as a hybrid by Unicode,
    I need code allocations for these entities. Any help would be appriciated.

    Tamil research Group

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Hans Aberg" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:30 PM
    Subject: Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

    > At 12:17 -0700 2005/05/23, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    >>We need to steer clear of the dangers of assuming that anything
    >>which is text*like* must be encoded as characters and interchanged
    >>in plain text in Unicode.
    >>There is no prima facie case for standardizing characters for
    >>undeciphered scripts (even if they can be demonstrated to actually
    >>be *scripts*). There is no obvious *need* to generate and
    >>transmit plain text involving undeciphered scripts. The main
    >>potential users -- a usually small number of decipherers -- can
    >>use other means to meet their needs.
    > It seems me that the basic Unicode range should mainly focus on
    > "characterizing" the atomic semantic units of natural scripts, ancient,
    > regional and modern. If a set of symbols has not been reliably deciphered,
    > according to this principle, it should not be added.
    > The reason, though, that good folks fight so hard over getting all kinds
    > of symbols added to Unicode, it seems me, is that if one does not succeed
    > with that, one is left out in the cold. The private range gives no
    > guarantees of anything. I can look through already defined private ranges
    > and deliberately put my characters there, just in those places, it seems.
    > Unicode could provide more ranges of symbols, not as tightly held as the
    > basic one, helping to sort out symbols clashes, and helping to provide
    > glyphs for rendering. I think that if Unicode would do that, much
    > controversy would go away.
    > --
    > Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 24 2005 - 18:06:53 CDT