Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: > In my opinion, the structure of the collation table should not, > however, be the main consideration which goes into determining: > > A. Whether a particular historic variant of some writing system > should be separately encoded... > > B. Whether, given a technical determination in (A) that a > separate script encoding is warranted, whether it should be > encoded at all...
I agree completely. Decide first whether something (a single character or a whole script) should be encoded, then worry about collation and other ancillary issues. > Ancient forms of Aramaic > aren't going to be taken up anytime soon for any consideration > for encoding. And the Roadmap cannot be taken as a predetermination > of the eventual decisions in this regard, in my opinion. Maybe not as far as whether it will actually be encoded. We do know that "Accordance with the Roadmap" is often the sole justification for the code positions specified in proposals, as discussed in a thread some months ago. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
