Re: Refining the idea for the SignWriting proposal

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Mon Jun 21 2010 - 14:52:32 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Using Javascript to Detect Script Support in a Browser"

    A small aside on one suggestion by Philippe Verdy:

    > This also suggests a new separate general category for the abstract
    > symbols/traits encoded for such complex scripts, instead of assigning
    > them in "gc=Lo" or defining them as unrelated symbols in "gc=S*" :
    > possibly "gc=Lx" ?

    That would run afoul of one of the Unicode Character Encoding
    Stability Policy guarantees:

    To wit:

    "The General_Category property values will not be further subdivided."

    *If* characters for SignWriting are ever encoded in the Unicode
    Standard, the precedent followed would almost certainly be
    that of musical symbols: they would be given gc=So (Other_Symbol),
    and any particularities regarding layout would be handled by
    other mechanisms.

    Incidentally, as an aside, I consider it most unlikely that
    anything approaching a generic glyph description language
    would ever be encoded as Unicode *characters*. Such problems
    clearly belong in other realms than character encoding per se.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 21 2010 - 14:54:48 CDT