2015-05-23 20:50 GMT+02:00 Petr Tomasek <[email protected]>: > Hm, it seems that there is much more to be encoded in Unicode than just > the quarter-tone signs.. >
Clearly not a valid arguments against encoding a character. There are plenty of characters still not encoded even in scripts already encoded, this never meant that the encoded part should have been stalled until the set was "complete". Each ecoded character has to be evaluated individually, even if it makes sense to add them in groups when their association in that group is necessary to make them usable (for example it would have been a non-sense in any language to encode only Latin vowels without any consonnant, but it would have been meaningful to encoded only basic Arabic consonnants and postpone the encoding of basic vowels. The merits of an encoding proposal is measured by its usage and usability in a well-established (orthographic) convention. It is important then to explore what is this convention and why more than 1 character are needed together for that convention. Then we can compare with other competing conventionw what they have in common (this is what Unicode considers a "script", even if it is not necessarily for writing spoken languages).
