Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote: > Please note that ConScript is for fun. It is for play. It is not to > be taken seriously. It is an experiment to see whether people > interested in some of those scripts will agree to use PUA to exchange > data. Interestingly, some folks have for Shavian. No one seems to for > Tengwar.
A note on Shavian: Since its ConScript encoding seems to be more widely used than any other, I would like to suggest that Ewellic be moved to some other block besides the one "formerly" occupied by Shavian. "Old" implementations don't disappear overnight; just ask John Jenkins. Reserving a formerly used allocation for a period of time to avoid such conflicts is a reasonable policy used by, for example, the ISO 639 and 3166 maintenance agencies (ignoring, for the moment, the allocation of ROU in ISO 3166 that violated that MA's own policy). > Of course Shavian implementations should be upgrading to Unicode > encoding now. :-) No, they shouldn't. Shavian is not in the current version of Unicode (3.2). I got smacked upside the head on this list once for suggesting that a character be used before "its" version of Unicode had been released. Shavian has been in the pipeline for 5 years now, and is a shoo-in to be encoded in Unicode 4.0, but implementers are not supposed to use that encoding yet except for private testing. For that reason, I suggest not only that Ewellic be relocated to some block in ConScript besides U+E700 (U+E830 or U+E840 seems reasonable), but that the original registration of Shavian be restored until the release of Unicode 4.0 next year. Shavian shouldn't be kicked out of ConScript until Unicode is ready to take it. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
