Proposed New Scripts
The following summary lists entire scripts that
have been proposed for inclusion in future versions of the Unicode
Standard, and either approved or under consideration by the
Technical Committee (UTC). The Unicode Consortium is
soliciting review by knowledgeable individuals, scholars or
This page was last updated 25-November-2015.
- Reviewers or
prospective implementers should use the
to submit additional input on the proposed scripts or their
implementations, formal comments, or requests for additional
- Detailed status information
on all proposed and approved characters, including additions to
existing scripts, can be found in the
- For more information on that table, the proposal process, and planned use of the
remaining code space see
About the Pipeline Table.
use of proposed or accepted characters is at
implementers' own risk; the repertoire and allocation of the
characters may change before they are adopted in the Unicode
The scripts in this stage have had preliminary proposals
for encoding submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee
and/or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, but these proposals
are not yet complete, and further information is required
in order to evaluate them, so that they may progress toward encoding.
They may not yet have undergone technical review, either for
lack of relevant expertise or simply because the material
itself is exploratory in nature.
Review Input Requested: For these proposals, the UTC is seeking expert feedback to assist in completing the proposals to the level where
a well-formed encoding can be technically evaluated, and
where there can be reasonable assurance that at least the
basic repertoire is presented concisely and completely in
a manner consistent with the encoding practices of
Expert reviewers of these scripts may be able to work with the proposers by
contacting the Script Encoding Initiative.
The scripts in the following list have complete formal proposals,
with representative glyphs and suggested names for characters, and other
information required for their encoding.
Usually this includes the required
Summary Form with
the information needed by the committees for evaluation.
Requested: The UTC is seeking expert feedback to
help assess these proposals for technical correctness and
to ensure that there are no oversights or potential implementation
problems with the proposed encoding, before the repertoire
is formally approved by the UTC and begins its formal
balloting process in ISO. Where
possible, the UTC is also seeking endorsement of the proposal by any relevant user communities
interested in the script, in order to gain an
indication of a need for use of the script in Unicode text.
The following list of scripts have been approved by the UTC and WG2, but have not yet started formal ISO balloting.
In WG2, such scripts are referred to as "In the Bucket," meaning they are ready for balloting, when SC2 is prepared for an appropriate amendment to start its balloting. On occasion, a script formerly in ISO balloting may be removed from active ballot, if sufficient consensus about its progress did not occur during balloting. Such scripts are put "On Hold for Balloting," and require further technical work to develop a consensus proposal.
Review Input Requested: At this stage, the UTC is seeking review of the approved proposals, so that any defects can be found before ISO balloting commences. In cases where a proposal is on hold for balloting, the UTC is seeking technical feedback to help resolve any controversial issues preventing consensus on the encoding.
The following list of scripts have been approved by the
UTC and WG2, and SC2 has initiated the process of formal
ISO balloting on the proposals, as part of amendments to
or new editions of 10646. Such balloting includes ISO committee stage ballots (PDAM or CD) and ISO enquiry stage ballots (DAM or DIS).
Review Input Requested: At this stage, the UTC is seeking final review of the approved
proposals, so that any defects can be noted before ballot
deadlines, to be reported to WG2 via the Unicode liaison
and/or national body comments in time for formal ballot
resolution of comments. During these ballots,
it is still possible to make technical changes in the amendment
content, although major restructuring of script proposals is
the exception rather than the rule. Amendments may incorporate
a number of separate script proposals in one omnibus
ballot, and it is important that feedback at this point
refer to the actual amendment text rather than to the
original proposal documents that were used by WG2 to prepare
the amendment text.
CD 2 for the Fifth Edition
The following list of scripts have completed their final technical ballots
(the ISO enquiry stage DAM or DIS ballots). They are either in
non-technical, approval stage ballots (FDAM or FDIS), or are simply
awaiting final, synchronized publication in a version of the Unicode
Standard and in one or more amendments or editions of 10646.
Implementers can be confident that character code points and names will be
unchanged from this point forward. However, it is important to note that any
reference to an original proposal document here may not reflect the actually
approved final encoding for the characters. The most accessible and accurate
record of approved code points and character names at this stage can be found in
the corresponding data directory associated with the
beta review of the implementing data files of the
Unicode Character Database.
Review Input Requested: At
stage, the character allocation and names can no longer be
changed, but once a formal beta review period has been announced as
Public Review Issue, the Unicode Technical Committee is seeking
the following types of review and feedback from experts and
- final review of the representative glyphs
- input on
character properties contained in the
data files for the corresponding next version of the standard.
Reviewers familiar with related scripts should compare the
property assignments for characters of similar functions for
- additional information about the script that can be used in
the block description
- additional information on the use of characters. This might
include description of the usage of certain characters, or samples
showing particular use.
Such feedback is, of course, also welcome
from any interested experts even at earlier stages in the approval
process, before the encoding itself has been finalized. This helps
in improving the explanatory text of the standard.
FDAM 2 for the Fourth Edition