D. Starner wrote:
Iâve heard Japanese so proposed repeatedly.Has there ever been a formal proposal to WG2 / UTC?
(of course we know what the result would be since CJK unification is a fundamental part of the standard)
Iâve also heard, and agree with, the arguments that IPA is a script in the sense used in iso10646.No, but if a serious and well formed proposal is made it deserves due consideration.
Itâs just not as simple that every script that is seriously proposed
should be accepted.
Maybe what Ken wrote
<< what it comes down to in the Unicode Standard is that a script distinction is a distinct encoding of a script, neither more nor less. It does not correlate directly to a graphologist's or palaeographer's definition (if they have one) of what a script is, nor can it be defined, a priori, axiomatically. It comes down to decisions about potential usefulness of separate encoding of certain candidate collections of
related writing symbols, based on historical identity, technical considerations of how various desired processes
may interact with the encoding choices, and input from (sometimes competing) interested parties who may or may
not want a separate encoding for some entity, based on the way they have traditionally interacted with
materials of relevance. >>
is the nearest thing we are going to get to a principle applied to such proposals - even though he made his post in an unofficial capacity.
A Phoenician encoding would in no way prevent Semitic scholars from continuing to represent the texts they work with using Hebrew characters. Since they claim near total unanimity on their desire to use Hebrew characters, claims that Phoenician characters will cause them substantial difficulty searching and collating texts in essence amount to a red herring. After all they are hardly going to use texts encoded by those they consider to be amateur script enthusiasts and dilettanti as authoritative sources - so when are they going to encounter difficulty searching and collating these texts?
- Chris
