Le lun. 11 nov. 2019 à 17:31, Markus Scherer <markus.icu_at_gmail.com> a
écrit :
> We generally assign the script code when the script is in the pipeline for
> a near-future version of Unicode, which demonstrates that it's "a candidate
> for encoding". We also want the name of the script to be settled, so that
> the script code can be roughly mnemonic for the name.
>
This is not true for some scripts that have been encoded since long in ISO
15924, not all with a proposal candidate for encoding (notably the various
Tolkien's invented scripts, Cirth, Tengwar, ... and Klingon, which all have
limited use and active supporters).
Other scripts were added even without lot of evidence, or that are not even
deciphered (Mayan hieroglyphs, Linear A...). There are also missing scripts
in India which are still in contemporary use and important for the local
cultures (but with limited support in specific states or smaller
communities at subregional level only), in Myanmar/Burma, and in aboriginal
communities some southern Indonesian islands (I think there are also some
aboriginal logographic scripts in Australia, and other Precolombian scripts
in Central and South America and very remote islands in Southern Pacific,
and still in North-eastern Russia/Beringia).
Received on Mon Nov 11 2019 - 16:48:03 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Nov 11 2019 - 16:48:03 CST