<rick@unicode.org> writes:
> Shavian and Deseret are examples of
> scripts that needn't have been encoded now, and aren't very widely used,
and
> aren't _NEEDED_ by anyone at all, but were encoded because a while back
> someone just happened to have done the work, and the proposals have just
been
> sitting around gathering dust.
Shavian, at least, has a body of users that are ready and willing to use
Unicode. I have never seen or heard of actual use of Unicode for Cherokee
(and I have done some browsing of the appropriate sites and a little talking
to users); after sticking Shavian in a web search early today, I've seen
several examples of Unicode being used for Shavian (Conscript encoding), and
several comments about being prepared to switch to a real Unicode encoding.
> What's "bad" is that work seems to get done on fictional scripts while
there
Really? There's only one fictional script encoded, and one on the fast track
to encoding. Both those are simple non-shaping, non-combining LTR scripts
with a very well defined closed set of characters. It probably only took an
afternoon to write up either of them. I think that more effort has been
wasted debating fictional scripts on unicode@unicode.org than it will take
to get them encoded.
> There are various
> reasons for that, the most common being that we can't get enough
information
> about them. The most common reason for not having enough information is
that
> we can't shlep enough experts to us, nor shlep enough of us to the
experts,
> to complete any encoding proposals... a matter of time and funds.
How does encoding fictional scripts affect this one way or another?
-- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 13:48:07 EDT