On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 20:29:40 -0700, Markus Scherer <markus....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > We need to get more scripts into Unicode, not more emoji. > > > > That is — somewhat inflated — the core message of a NYT article published > > six months ago, > > and never shared here (no more than so many articles about Unicode, > > scripts, and emoji). > > Some 100 scripts are missing in the Standard, affecting as many as 400 > > million people worldwide. > > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/how-the-appetite-for-emojis-complicates-the-effort-to-standardize-the-worlds-alphabets.html > > You are right. One good way that you can help make it happen is to support > the Script Encoding Initiative which is mentioned in the article. > > Some of the AAC money goes there. And since the most popular adopted > characters are emoji, their popularity is helping close the gap that you > pointed out. > > > They have also helped in other ways -- they really motivated developers to > make their code work for supplementary code points, grapheme cluster > boundaries, font ligatures, spurred development of color font technology, and > got organizations to update to newer versions of Unicode faster than > before. Several of these things are especially useful for recently added > scripts.
Thank you for the point. Indeed, the NYT article, too, is much more balanced than what I bounced to the List as an exaggerated takeaway. We send our thanks to the sponsors of the Adopt A Character program, to the SEI, and to the United States National Endowment for the Humanities, which funded the Universal Scripts Project. And last but not least, to the Unicode Consortium. I note, too, that the cited 400 million people do write in less than fifty yet unsupported – but hopefully soon encoded – scripts. Best regards, Marcel
