Subject: Re: Unicode/10646 History (was Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC)

From: Kenneth Whistler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:01:55 -0800 (PST)

Eric,

> > approximately 60,000,000 Egyptians in Egypt
> 
> Do you think they want bidi and Arabic first, 

Bidi and Arabic first. Next question.

> or something else, say Pharonic
> Egyptian?
> 
> My guess is bidi+Arabic. If the AINC guys and gals answer "Pharonic Egyptian
> First", then I'm wrong. Let's ask 'em. They may have a sense of humor.
>

Hmm. I suppose we could ask the CIRA guys and gals whether they
want English and French first or something else, say
Syllabics. Maybe they have a sense of humor, too.

--Ken

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 20:36:16 -0500

Ken,

If Pharonic Egyptian isn't as important as bidi and Arabic, what living
languages is it less important than?

How much time has the UTC spent on Pharonic Egyptian?
On Experanto?
On Klingon?
On Runic?
On Ogham?
On the rest of the epigraphic manias? Don't forget the time spent by the
Scripts Working Group.

Are living languages becoming extinct, or here -- CJKV stuck on some hard bit
of apparently overlooked technical work left undone?

Funny you should mention the CIRA, as I need to talk to them about languages
other than English. However, speaking simply as an individual IETF contributor,
I think the CIRA, and the UTC, may want to look into the technical requirements
for romanized forms of Cree.

What is your point about UCAS? Without Unicode, the pDAM, and real work by
Dirk (and some mistakes too, take a look at the row-column vs column-row
ordering both in Nunavut, and in Northern Cree/Siksika usage -- I learned
e-pe-ke-me as a kid, not the other way), that ... what?

Eric