If so you must have second sight, because I have not stated this point before, which is that the place for Aramaic, if encoded at all, is on the SMP together with other extinct scripts.
Ah. I thought you were complaining (again) about Aramaic being on any Roadmap, rather than making a distinction between SMP and BMP.
But extinct scripts should be encoded on the SMP, according to the rules in e.g. TUS 4.0 section 2.8. Gothic is an example of that. If Aramaic is encoded, it should be another example.
There are no RULES about where anything gets encoded. There are guidelines. nevertheless, I have no problem with Aramaic being encoded on the SMP. I'll move it there now. Happy Christmas. :-)
It was you, Michael, who wrote:The UTC should make sure that such research has been done properly, and not allow provisional decisions taken on the basis of incomplete research to become standardised by default.
Don't be ridiculous. Nothing gets standardized by default.
When I fill out the proposal summary form, I do NOT bother to rehash all the reasons why we decided to put something on the BMP or the SMP.
That implies that you expect the UTC to accept those reasons without further questioning,
No, it doesn't, but you are not taking into account other facets of our process that have to do with consensus in the meetings. I can't fault you for that, but please don't be so literalist. ;-)
without even any documentation explaining the earlier decision, and without checking whether, even according to that documentation, "Further research is required". That was my meaning.
The UTC doesn't allocate code positions. WG2 does. We assign things their places in WG2 meetings according to consensus.
Now, go have a mince pie. I'm going to. :-) -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
