From: Mark Davis ☕ <m...@macchiato.com> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM, <vanis...@boil.afraid.org> wrote: >> From: Ken Whistler <kenw_at_sybase.com> >> > 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 > > 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>
Well, I was speaking of the general case, not this specific example. Orthographies which mix in random characters from other scripts do not, and should not, drive the identity of characters for scripts, per se. If you need to indicate a random character from another script used in a particular orthography, Script Extensions is the mechanism that should probably be used, rather than assigning a character that firmly belongs in one script to script=common. Is that better, Mark? -Van
