*>>> Because we aren't ready to do it without doing it in the context of the whole script. * *>> * *>> Why not? Can you give some indication of what you're afraid of, some scenario of how we could possibly >later regret having included the basic digits now? *
>Because the structure of the Mayan script is complex, and I don't believe that just saying that the numbers >are simple and do not participate in that complexity is sufficient to convince us that encoding the numbers >right now would not lead to undiscovered problems in the future. I never said the numbers do not participate in that complexity. In fact, I explicitly brought up several ways that they do. What I said was, the numbers are used by a significant population, today, who should not have to wait for the Mayanists to get their act together. If we encode the numerals now, then once the script is eventually fully encoded, one of several things will happen: - We will have (through responsible forethought) guessed right on the metadata, and the pre-encoded numerals will be usable as-is in the general encoding - We will have guessed wrong on the metadata, but in a way that can be retroactively fixed with zero impact to any existing document which doesn't contain non-numeric Mayan. - We will have guessed wrong on the metadata, and the decision is made that a retroactive fix is the best solution, given that it (say) impacts only documents which mix Mongolian with Mayan numerals. - We will have guessed wrong on the metadata, but anyway need to encode multiple versions of the number glyphs, so having used up 20 codepoints for modern users of the Mayan numerals is no big loss. - We will have guessed wrong, and will end up with 2 versions of each numeral glyph, a "modern use" and a "precolumbian style" version. I think the latter 2 possibilities are both acceptable and unlikely. Am I wrong? If so, why? Jameson
