In a message dated 2002-01-07 10:31:32 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Making an entry in this demo file for a proposed Plane 1 script that is > NOT IN UNICODE, is both premature and dangerous. It has not been discussed > in committee, and a spot for Tengwar on the roadmap is absolutely NO > GUARANTEE of any future disposition. There's another problem. Even if Tengwar's slot in the U+12000 block of the Roadmap somehow assured us that it would one day be encoded there, there would still be no guarantee that its exact layout would be the same as proposed. Deseret was laid out one way for its 1997 CSUR proposal, then a different way by Michael Everson (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1891) a year later, and finally a third way when it was finally encoded in Unicode 3.1. And there were fewer questions concerning the encoding of Deseret than that of Tengwar. > If someone feels compelled to make an entry for Tengwar in any demo, > please do it in the PUA so that people don't start getting the idea that > Tengwar is encoded, because it's not encoded, and is not going to be > encoded any time soon. The only proper way at present to represent Tengwar in Unicode is according to the CSUR proposal, in the U+E000 block. The use of undesignated code space in Unicode is a Bad Thing. This should not be a question of whether one "dislikes" or "rejects" CSUR; it is, quite simply, the *least non-standard* way to do it. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
