In a message dated 2002-01-07 10:31:32 Pacific Standard Time,
rick@unicode.org writes:
> Making an entry in this demo file for a proposed Plane 1 script that is
> NOT IN UNICODE, is both premature and dangerous. It has not been discussed
> in committee, and a spot for Tengwar on the roadmap is absolutely NO
> GUARANTEE of any future disposition.
There's another problem. Even if Tengwar's slot in the U+12000 block of the
Roadmap somehow assured us that it would one day be encoded there, there
would still be no guarantee that its exact layout would be the same as
proposed.
Deseret was laid out one way for its 1997 CSUR proposal, then a different way
by Michael Everson (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1891) a year later, and finally a
third way when it was finally encoded in Unicode 3.1. And there were fewer
questions concerning the encoding of Deseret than that of Tengwar.
> If someone feels compelled to make an entry for Tengwar in any demo,
> please do it in the PUA so that people don't start getting the idea that
> Tengwar is encoded, because it's not encoded, and is not going to be
> encoded any time soon.
The only proper way at present to represent Tengwar in Unicode is according
to the CSUR proposal, in the U+E000 block. The use of undesignated code
space in Unicode is a Bad Thing. This should not be a question of whether
one "dislikes" or "rejects" CSUR; it is, quite simply, the *least
non-standard* way to do it.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 23:45:38 EST