2012/6/10 Doug Ewell <[email protected]>: >>> I agree with Philippe on this one. It's not up to Unicode to decide >>> whether a script is "practical," easy to read, easy to write, etc. > > But I think this is a matter of UTC and WG2 determining whether the script > is in actual use, not of determining whether it is a "good" script in terms > of the criteria that Stephan Stiller laid out.
The practicality of a script may also have different focuses. It is not necessarily bad, in a presentation of the principles, and for showing how it works and how it will be laid out, that the documentation isntially uses very strict geometric shapes. The actual use of the script (notably in African communities where it is intended to be used) will be more creative, and will certainly derive more suitable glyphs, thaty are both easier to handwrite, but also to read. There's alsready an evidence using shapes with rounded corners. However explaining a script that will basically use a single curve is not easy. IT's probably best to learn it first with precise geometries to train the eyes and the hand, in order to use consistent metrics. IF this script ever succeeds, the too geometric shapes with sharp angles and too many junctions will not survive long. There will be verious styles, just like on other scripts, just compare the old capital Latin script on stones with modern Latin. It will even go faster here (and without this evolution, I doubt the script will ever survice its author).
