At 10:18 -0800 2001-12-11, James Kass wrote: >A standardized encoding for the symbols might do much to help >researchers and aficionados in their deciphering attempts. But, >since nothing is really known for certain about the symbols, there >would be no way to assign properties to the "characters", if they >are characters.
Re: Phaistos, it's been thought that until a second document comes to light, there's not much to say. >I'm curious about the range in the Roadmap reserved for undeciphered >scripts. Once a script is encoded by the Standard, it's more-or-less >"carved in stone". What would happen if a script were encoded in that >range and subsequently became deciphered? The sky would fall. >Perhaps instead of reserving an area in the Standard for undeciphered >scripts, some ad hoc registry for undeciphered scripts could be set >up for the Private Use Area Plane similar to the ConScript registry >established for the PUA in the BMP. Didn't I say I was going to put Phaistos in the ConScript registry? I forgot. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
