I'm not talking a missing font, even though this would be a problem, too. I'm talking about scripts that aren't encoded at all, for example the Zaghawa alphabet.
And I understand, of course, that it's technically problematic. What I'm asking is whether there's an explicit written Language committee policy about it, or is it just a de facto practical matter. בתאריך יום א׳, 14 באפר׳ 2019, 19:41, מאת Gerard Meijssen < [email protected]>: > Hoi, > In the past the WMF has funded the creation of a Unicode font. Having a > Unicode font is essential when we are to support it in MediaWiki. Not > having a fully developed font is what hinders the necessary follow up of > projects in SignWriting ie all the signed languages. > > I do agree that a language with a default script not supported in Unicode > is hugely problematic. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:36, Amir E. Aharoni < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a vague recollection that we require Unicode support to create a >> new language, but I cannot find it in the policy. Do we indeed require this >> explicitly, or am I just making things up? >> >> Or is it just a de facto practicality—that it's technically difficult to >> host a language in a script that isn't supposed in Unicode? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
