So to date, Unicode has only made half its way, and for every single script in the
Standard there is another script out there that remains still unsupported.
First things first. When I first replied in the first thread of this year I already
warned:
>>> Having said that, still unsupported minority languages are top priority.
I didn’t guess that I opened a Pandora box whose content would lead us
far away from the only useful goal deeply embedded in the concept of
Unicode: support all of the world’s writing systems.
You will find that the existing Unicode
        support for 28+ modern scripts is
        sufficient to cover the languages that are in everyday written
        use and likely
        to remain so, because they are formally taught to the next
        generation.
There are a handful of additional scripts,
        also already encoded, that would
        cover languages for which such written use is emerging or
        re-emerging.
      
The rest of Unicode scripts plus scripts yet
        to be encoded are about 
        preservation and capture of existing written records, or
        transcription of
        languages in predominantly spoken use, not primarily about
        supporting active everyday communication of language users.
As with all complex scenarios, there may be
        this or that edge case that
        the generalization above doesn't adequately cover. However, the
        fact 
        remains that encoding of additional scripts affects a different
        realm of
        usage.
Extensions contemplated that impact everyday
        communication (as
        those discussed on a parallel thread here) are therefore
        potentially
        useful on a very practical level to users of majority and
        minority languages
        living today. Therefore, the implication that only the
        additional coverage
        of dead scripts, or transcription of endangered languages is a
        useful goal rings a bit false.
        
        It's a very worthwhile goal, but so is making improvements to
        those aspects
        of Unicode that widely figure in everyday communication of
        living populations.
A./
PS: of course, if a contemplated change,
        such as the one alluded to, should be ill 
        advised, its negative effects could have wide ranging
        impacts...but that's
        not the topic here.
      
      
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jan 16 2019 - 10:23:55 CST