On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This is true. But unless someone formally proposes the missing >characters, they won't appear in the Unicode. Us Tolkien fans cannot be >blamed for Japanese standards organisations, I think :-)
Precisely. There is no inherent reason why formal proposals couldn't be submitted by anyone with expertise in a given writing system. The question then becomes, is there a bottleneck somewhere in the allocation pipeline, and if so, where exactly? If there is, we might argue that scripts have to be prioritized. But.. If such a bottleneck has formed inside Unicode Consortium and/or ISO, we have to wonder whether those organizations have the requisite capacity to manage a standard as important as Unicode. If the bottleneck is in lacking proposals, this cannot be used as a reason not to include synthetic scripts which *do* have a standing proposal. I don't really see a place for prioritization based counter-arguments wrt inclusion of synthetic scripts in Unicode. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
