Jill Ramonsky scripsit: > So, if I have understood this correctly (which is by no means certain), > these tag characters were added to Unicode in the vague hope that some > people might one day start using them, or on the off-chance that someone > might one day need them.
Not. They were added in order to ward off an abuse of UTF-8 by a certain committee that insisted it needed lightweight language tagging in a certain computer protocol. The tags were never a "script". Everyone on the UTC sincerely hopes, I believe, that they never get used at all. For 99.9% of all use cases, ordinary markup is the Right Thing for language tagging. > Alternatively, maybe I've misunderstood and there is, in fact, no such > requirement that a script appear in published books before it may be > added to Unicode ... in which case, of course, it cannot be used as an > argument for the Consortium's rejection of Klingon. "Books" is an equivoque. Publishing (i.e. distributing to the public) in some medium of writing is certainly an important factor. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.
