Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote: > Anyway, the character "has well defined user community / usage", the > users of the dictionary in question. It is not clear that "user" > implies those who write the character, or only those who read it. > Many historical characters have been accepted for Unicode which are > not regularly written, except in copying old texts, but are still > regularly read.
This implies that the requirement for "interchange" of the proposed character is no longer in effect, or at least seriously weakened. I'm not sure if that's the case. I don't know how many scholars actually *write* Linear B and Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform, creating a true "interchange" situation, but I'll bet it's more than the number of dictionary users who *write* th-with-strikethrough. The number of people who *use* the dictionary and learn this symbol on an ad-hoc basis (either by consulting the key or just figuring it out) may be an overestimate of the true number of "users of the symbol." I have to say I've seen lots worse suggestions than the ones presented by Ernest. In particular, I don't think this proposed character survives the "positive vs. negative" criteria in Annex G of N2652R. I don't see why this needs to be an atomic character instead of some combination of t, CGJ, h, and either U+0337 or U+0338. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
