On 20 Aug 2012, at 19:28, Asmus Freytag wrote: > I seem to recall that there's a definite interest in Mayan numbers that's > separate from the script as a whole. In the former group you'll find > mathematicians, physicists and astronomers who don't necessarily need the > full script, as Mayan scholars or archeologists would. In fact, the Mayan > numbers probably have an altogether wider audience. > > So why would you hold them back?
Those numbers are part of the script as a whole. I would not want to encode them without having done all the contextual analysis of how they behave within the script -- not just abstractly outside of it. In the meantime, mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers can use the PUA if they need to implement and exchange data in a UCS context. I would even consider that appropriate for the CSUR, in the short term. The Phaistos Disc, Shavian, and Deseret characters were there for a while before their encoding. But there is no reason to rush forward encoding a tiny subset of an important and complex script on some assumption that those characters don't interact with other characters in the script in a meaningful way. That is asking for trouble in encoding. More haste, less speed. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
