From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 21 2010 - 14:52:32 CDT
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:
"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
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