This might be a little overstated (though perhaps some people do feel this way).
But, devil's advocate -- since Unicode is an industrial consortium which must ultimately answer to its members (and whose representatives must ultimately answer to their superiors in terms of budgeting that $12,000!), I think it is entirely reasonable to look at rarely used scripts and fictional scripts (both of which member companies are unlikely to implement for reasons I doubt I need to go into here?) and categorize them a lower priority than that of scripts that are neither? When specifically choosing between a rarely used script and a fictional script, the former is more appealing to me personally as I feel that there is a greater value to dealing with what is "real" first. I understand that the lines between fictional are rarely used are over blurry, and I am not suggesting anything as extreme as what you mention, but Unicode should be concerned about how people perceive it. And how those "higher ups" who approve the budget money to belong to Unicode perceive things like Tengwar (do any of the member companies plan to add locale information for Elvish regions, collation, fonts, or anything else?). MichKa Michael Kaplan Trigeminal Software, Inc. -- http://www.trigeminal.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unapproved Characters > Michael Everson scripsit: > > > Who's strongly against it?'re perfectly valid scripts. They > > I don't recall any names, but I definitely remember that some people > feel it's trivializing Unicode, and a waste of resources that could > be spent on Real World, if rarely used, scripts. > > > -- > John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com > I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ > >
