Eric Muller wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin script for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode support it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode supports the Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's the problem?
Latin n with descender, which is not encoded but needed according to <http://www.eki.ee/letter/chardata.cgi?lang=tt+Tatar&script=latin>.
So we verify that it's true, and encode it. Why should Russia care? (It's not even in the Cyrillic block) It sounds like we've heard evidence that this isn't an idiosyncratic usage by one or two people, and there are folks who use this orthography. If it's in use, or if it *was* in use, Unicode has to support it.
There's always a higher bar for proving that something should *not* be encoded, as we saw already with Phoenician. If a sizable minority of people use it, what's the harm? We're not hurting for codepoints. I haven't seen much argument on the only substantive questions: do these letter actually occur and is the orthography actually being used. That's really all that matters to the decision. I've seen some weak "yes" answers to the second question, one "yes" for the first, but not much in terms of evidence.
~mark
