At 09:35 -0800 2002-03-13, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote: >The UCA does not handle collation for all of the currently supported >languages in various projects.
The UCA template offers a default collation for each script, however. > > Not that the "higher ups" are spending a lot of money on Old Italic >> or Ogham or Tagbanwa either, right? > >Or Deseret. Which originated in Unicode, by the way, not in WG2. :-) > > Often, whether a script is prioritized or not has to do with the > > amount of reliable information we have about it, as a practical > > matter. > >Makes sense. But the perception issue is inescapeable. Someone (I'm not saying you) would have to make cogent arguments against Tengwar for me to fathom why it would be perceived as unworthy of encoding. We've argued persuasively that there is a genuine need to interchange data in it, and an active community of users. That their use is recreational rather than liturgical makes no difference as far as I can see. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
