Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:37:48 -0700

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

>> Which makes me curious: is there any reason that a not-yet-encoded 
>> script cannot have an ISO 15924 script code? There doesn't seem to be 
>> a reason not to assign a script code if the script is well 
>> identified.
>
> No, and there are some non-Unicode scripts which have script codes. We 
> tend toward conservatism here, but are waiting for the proposal for 
> Ewellic to come through. ;-)

I'd write it, but:

1.  Ewellic <http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ewellic.html> has been 
used non-trivially by only one person, as far as I know, which severely 
limits the need for public interchange and thus for public coding.  Cut 
Spelling would appear to be a runaway popular success by comparison.

2.  Such a proposal would likely hang in limbo indefinitely, neither 
accepted nor rejected, much like the ConScript proposal which was last 
revised 4 years ago but still has not been approved for registration. 
(Sorry.)

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru