Bob Richmond, wearing a shirt that says "saqqara" <saqqara at csi dot com> wrote:
> While we are here, will Coptic disunification imply restoration of > Coptic to the ISO-15924 list (it was there at one time, number 205 in > a 1998 draft) or will you stick with private use Qaac per UTR #24? I hadn't noticed that Coptic had been removed. I should check these lists more carefully. Michael will undoubtedly have his reasons, but it certainly does seem strange to talk about Coptic being disunified from Greek while at the same time its ISO 15924 code has been removed -- implying a conscious decision, not like it was just overlooked -- especially when variants of Latin and Syriac do have codes but are not considered different scripts. "Qaac" for Coptic isn't in the current UAX #24 sample list, which was pared down to prevent people like me from thinking it was a complete normative list, but it was in the previous version (which was a UTR). Funny moment: The Unicode Web site search engine couldn't find this earlier version, nor any other text containing the string "Qaac," but it did helpfully report that "English does not appear to be the language of your Search Phrase." Gee, you don't think? At least "Qaac" doesn't conflict with any of my suggested ISO 15924 private-use codes for ConScript. :-) -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
