From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote: > > If so, why not reserving all codes starting by "Qa" for private use? > > This would give 676 rows, whose only 50 first ones have a standard > > 3-digits numeric code, and could allow librarians to create their own > > private references by giving them full freedom on the last 2 letters > > of alphabetic codes, so that they could use them mnemonically (for now > > all they have is "aa" to "az" and ba" to "bx"). > > Just allow any of the Qa codes to be associated with any of the numeric > codes 900-949, with no prior restrictions. That's the way normal ISO > 15924 codes work.
I was rather thinking about NOT defining any numeric code for all private 4-Letters codes Qaby-Qazz, but letting the implementation choosing its own private numeric codes *out of* the restricted 3-digits space 000-999. There will still be a limited interchangeability of numeric codes 900-959 associated with alpha codes Qaaa-Qabx, but no What I would like to see is a larger set of alpha codes for local use. Allowing all Qaaa-Qazz would match this need, with 676 possible codes, of which the first 50 are unambiguously mapped to numeric codes 900-949, and mapping the remaining 626 codes above 999 (but starting at which value? Will there be an extension with 4-digits codes?). Or possibly allocating a better private 4-letters space which won't have "mnemonic" use for future standard scripts, for example Qqaa-Qqzz (for example if one wants to encode a (conjectured) "Qatari" variant of Arabic or South-Arabian with a later standard code "Qata" which would fall in the previous 4-letter spaces. With a larger space explicitly allocated, there will never be any conflict with future standard codes.
