From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Or shouldn't simply Unicode deprecate script IDs in favor of ISO-15924 codes? > > This doesn't make any sense.
May be you don't understand the sense: I do not propose to change the existing IDs documented in UAX #24. They can stay there because they are already standard. But I see little interest in perpetuating a dual encoding system, when it is not necessary. ISO-15924 already contains codes for the missing scripts in Unicode. There's probably no need to reinvent new ones for future scripts so that UAX#24 would just need to say that all scripts standardized in Unicode that don't have an ID value in ISO15924 will use instead the 4-letters ISO15924 script code (in that case, there will be no future additions in the ID column of the ISO-15924 tables.) This is useful because this means that documents could be already tagged using the ISO15924 codes when they already ecist, even though they need to be encoded with PUAs for now in Unicode, and have no script ID property defined on these characters. CSS3 uses UAX#24 script IDs, but not the richer palette of ISO-15924 codes (it's normal because UAX#24 script IDs existed before ISO-15924 was approved and published).
