No, it's not. Including x in Lao for some pedagogical (I'm guessing) purpose is completely out of scope. That'd be like including π in Latin because it sometimes occurs in the middle of English text.
------------------------------ Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM, <vanis...@boil.afraid.org> wrote: > From: Ken Whistler <kenw_at_sybase.com> > > On 5/16/2012 2:54 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > > I have been wondering if U+0078 LATIN > > > SMALL LETTER X should be made common script because of its use for > > > displaying Lao vowels, but perhaps the principle of separation of > > > scripts should lead to LAO LETTER SMALL X. > > > > Please, no! ;-) > > > > Orthographies which mix in random characters from other scripts do not > > (or should not) drive the identity of characters for *scripts* per se. > > And edge cases for making mixed script collation work should not drive > > such decisions, either. > > > > --Ken > > Anyway, that's what ScriptExtensions.txt is for. > > -Van > > >
