Re: New documents

[David Starner]

Writes Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Now available:

 N2366   Proposal to add five phonetic characters to the UCS
  by Richard S. Cook, Jr., and Michael Everson
  http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2366.pdf

 N2361   Revised proposal to encode the Osmanya script in the SMP of the
UCS
  http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2361.pdf

At least according to that archive, new ISO 10646 stuff has almost
completely
stopped coming in since the release of ISO 10646-2.

I'm curious why Shavian is up for standardization before Tengwar and Cirth.
They're
all constructed scripts by authors (or at least for authors) of the 20th
century, the only
big difference being that one was used for one book and the others have a
decent
body of users (not huge, but probably bigger than Cherokee.)

--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New documents

[$B$F$s$I$&$j$e$&$8(B]

Because Shavian was "serious" and the other two were "fantastic", I guess.

No. This is no good. It is 04:57 and I have had zero sake. That is why I am crazy.



Just because more people know Saotome Ranma than your next-door neighbor, does that 
mean Saotome Ranma comes before your next-door neighbor? I dunno.

$B$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i(B




$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B 
$B!

Re: New documents

[Michael Everson]

At 07:04 +0100 2001-07-04, David Starner wrote:

I'm curious why Shavian is up for standardization before Tengwar and Cirth.
They're all constructed scripts by authors (or at least for authors) 
of the 20th century, the only big difference being that one was used 
for one book and the others have a decent body of users (not huge, 
but probably bigger than Cherokee.)

Shavian is really easy. Sorting out Cirth is complex because there 
are a number of sources to bring together. Tengwar is, in fact, a 
rather complex writing system.
-- 
Michael Everson