Origins of ẘ

2012-04-15 Thread David Starner
At Wiktionary, we're looking at ẘ (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it hard to look
up discussion on adding it, and the characters around it don't seem to
give clues to its origin.

-- 
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.




Re: Origins of ẘ

2012-04-15 Thread Rick McGowan

> At Wiktionary, we're looking at ẘ (U+1E98) and
> we can't figure out where it came from.

Good catch. It's obviously another stowaway...
Just throw it in the brig until we can get around to deporting it.





Re: Origins of ẘ

2012-04-15 Thread Shriramana Sharma
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Rick McGowan  wrote:
> Good catch. It's obviously another stowaway...
> Just throw it in the brig until we can get around to deporting it.

ẘoẘ, hoẘ many more stoẘaẘays do ẘe haẘe?

I remember this Asterix story (Asterix and the Vikings?) where there
were lots of rings above rolling around! ;-)

-- 
Shriramana Sharma




Re: Origins of ẘ

2012-04-15 Thread Asmus Freytag

On 4/15/2012 7:30 PM, Rick McGowan wrote:

> At Wiktionary, we're looking at ẘ (U+1E98) and
> we can't figure out where it came from.

Good catch. It's obviously another stowaway...
Just throw it in the brig until we can get around to deporting it.




The 1E00 and 1F00 blocks were populated, in Unicode 1.1 by rejects from 
Unicode 1.0 that were re-admitted as part of the merger with ISO/IEC 
10646. If you have anyone with access to the early (paper only) meeting 
documents of WG2, you might, just might, find a source for them.


Most of these characters were "rejected" because they were unnecessary - 
they are easily encoded as combining sequences and there were no legacy 
character sets that needed them precomposed for 1:1 roundtrip 
compatibility. WG2 and Unicode (before the merger) had different 
standards on what compatibility characters were required.


(There were some gaps in these blocks after the initial population of 
characters were added in Unicode 1.1. These were later filled with more 
solid candidates, so the "age" of each character is an important clue here).


Stowaway is an apt term - because the characters did not add anything 
new (they could already be encoded as combining sequences) and because 
normalization would remove them from the data stream, nobody tried very 
hard to fine-tune the set and as a result risk the failure of the 
merger. Ideal conditions for "stowaways" to enter hiding in the crowd.


A./