No, it's not.
Including x in Lao for some pedagogical (I'm guessing) purpose is
completely out of scope. That'd be like including π in Latin because it
sometimes occurs in the middle of English text.
------------------------------
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM, <vanisaac_at_boil.afraid.org> wrote:
> From: Ken Whistler <kenw_at_sybase.com>
> > On 5/16/2012 2:54 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > I have been wondering if U+0078 LATIN
> > > SMALL LETTER X should be made common script because of its use for
> > > displaying Lao vowels, but perhaps the principle of separation of
> > > scripts should lead to LAO LETTER SMALL X.
> >
> > Please, no! ;-)
> >
> > Orthographies which mix in random characters from other scripts do not
> > (or should not) drive the identity of characters for *scripts* per se.
> > And edge cases for making mixed script collation work should not drive
> > such decisions, either.
> >
> > --Ken
>
> Anyway, that's what ScriptExtensions.txt is for.
>
> -Van
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 16 2012 - 23:51:18 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 16 2012 - 23:51:25 CDT