Manuel Strehl <boldewyn at gmail dot com> wrote: > It's quite interesting for me to learn, that data here is such > fragmented.
If the data is fragmented, it's because the concept is somewhat fragmented. As others have pointed out, while mapping scripts to languages may be comparatively straightforward, mapping languages to regions is a lot like nailing jelly to a tree. > @Doug Ewell: Yes, I wondered, why that was added to Unicode, when I > read about Shavian first (in the context of Unicode codepoints). To clarify, my point was not that Deseret and Shavian should not have been added to Unicode, but that charts showing Deseret and Shavian as scripts "used" or "historically used" to write English, in the sense that (say) Arabic was historically used to write Turkish, may be easily misinterpreted. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
