From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 07:30:43 EST
On 23/12/2003 02:06, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 21:36 -0800 2003-12-22, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Maybe not as far as whether it will actually be encoded. We do know
>> that "Accordance with the Roadmap" is often the sole justification
>> for the code positions specified in proposals, as discussed in a
>> thread some months ago.
>
>
> Excuse me? Are you irritated about something, Doug?
>
> When I fill out the proposal summary form, I do NOT bother to rehash
> all the reasons why we decided to put something on the BMP or the SMP.
> Why? Because it isn't a good use of our time to rehash all of these
> things and pour out the history of why we thought it would be good to
> put something where. "Accordance with the Roadmap" is often the sole
> justification that I bother to put in the Proposal Summary form. But
> it reflects consensus about where the Roadmap Committee thinks things
> ought to go. You may remember that Ken convinced me to move Phoenician
> to the SMP at one stage in favour of Arabic Extensions. I suppose
> that's in the archives somewhere, where some future Historian of
> Unicode (hi there!) can find it.
As the subject line here is still about Aramaic, I shall remind you all
that that script is a good example of a script which has been roadmapped
for the BMP as a misunderstanding. If there is such a script at all
distinct from the Hebrew script, it is one which died out, and was
replaced by other encoded or roadmapped scripts, more than 2000 years
ago. So this is a case where the original decisions of the Roadmap
Committee need reviewing. That decision was based on N2311 which, as
James points out, notes twice that "Further research is required". The
UTC should make sure that such research has been done properly, and not
allow provisional decisions taken on the basis of incomplete research to
become standardised by default.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 08:06:10 EST