I had strange browser effects/caching issues: I did not see several "Age" values in that page (possibly because of a broken cache), and even my script did not detect it. I have already fixed that on my side and cleaned my cache to get a proper view of that page. Sorry for this disturbance, I trusted too much what my small semi-atuomated tool had collected (but I've not detected where it could have failed to parse the content, so I updated my own data manually). ISO 15924 does not have lot of data that cannot be edited by human.
Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 18:10, Ken Whistler <kenwhist...@sonic.net> a écrit : > > On 7/17/2019 4:54 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > > then the Unicode version (age) used for Hieroglyphs should also be > assigned to Hieratic. > > It is already. > > > In fact the ligatures system for the "cursive" Egyptian Hieratic is so > complex (and may also have its own variants showing its progression from > Hieroglyphs to Demotic or Old Coptic), that probably Hieratic should no > longer be considered "unified" with Hieroglyphs, and its existing ISO 15924 > code is then not represented at all in Unicode. > > It *is* considered unified with Egyptian hieroglyphs, until such time as > anyone would make a serious case that the Unicode Standard (and students of > the Egyptian hieroglyphs, in both their classic, monumental forms and in > hieratic) would be better served by a disunification. > > Note that *many* cursive forms of scripts are not easily "supported" by > out-of-the-box plain text implementations, for obvious reasons. And in the > case of Egyptian hieroglyphs, it would probably be a good strategy to first > get some experience in implementations/fonts supporting the Unicode 12.0 > controls for hieroglyphs, before worrying too much about what does or > doesn't work to represent hieratic texts adequately. (Demotic is clearly a > different case.) > > > For now ISO 15924 still does not consider Egyptian Hieratic to be > "unified" with Egyptian Hieroglyphs; this is not indicated in its > descriptive names given in English or French with a suffix like "(cursive > variant of Egyptian Hieroglyphs)", *and it has no "Unicode Age" version > given, as if it was still not encoded at all by Unicode*, > > That latter part of that statement (highlighted) is false, as is easily > determined by simple inspection of the Egyh entry on: > > https://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html > > --Ken > > >