I think it's up to you to develop a workable alternative to parallel coding, if you think that would be preferable.
Well, I have suggested several alternatives, only to have them all shouted down by Michael and rejected by Ken. ... So perhaps someone else can suggest an acceptable alternative, for the very real need
I don't see 'a very real need' here.
(if not for Phoenician, for some other cases) of encoding script variants, as defined in http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/standard/index.html#terms. I note from section 4.2 of this draft that:
Identification of such script variants, while outside the scope of ISO/IEC 10646, is relevant to the content of script codes.
There is more than one definition of script - we've gone over that ground before.
Does this imply that script variants should not be identified in Unicode plain text? That has implications for proposals for new scripts.
Not all bibliographically relevant variants need to be encoded in plain text.
As the discussion has gone on for a long time on the list and has involved only a small number of participants, I suggest that you contact the interested parties offline.
There are two good reasons for keeping this on the list:
I disagree:
1) I don't see this as a new discussion, but a way to wring life out of a beaten-to-death one.
2) Most successful proposals have been developed off the list.
A./
