Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059)

[Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode]

On 7/17/2018 8:56 PM, Janusz S. "Bień" wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17 2018 at  8:34 -0700, Asmus Freytag writes:
>> On 7/16/2018 10:04 PM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
>>
>>   I understand there is no sufficient demand for the Unicode Consortium
>> maintaining a supplementary non-ideographic variation database. Hence
>> for the time being  a kind of Private Use variation database seems to be
>> the only solution - am I right?
>>
>> The question comes down to resources, among other things. As well as to whether
>> there are actual users / implementers waiting for and ready to adopt such a database
>> as solution to their problems.
> I hope the resources are sufficient to improve wording of the variation
> sequence FAQ. Do we agree that at present users/implementers are rather
> misled by it?

Sure, we can go either of two ways: we can state that Unicode has no, 
and will not have any, solution to the issue of such variants for 
non-ideographic scripts. That part is easy.

Or, alternatively we could figure out, what the solution space might be 
(in the right circumstances), including some external resources for 
maintaining a database on an ongoing basis, and a larger well-identified 
community of scholars or archivists that sign up to use and support it.

If a non-zero solution space exists, simply saying that there will never 
be any solution would be equally wrong as the current wording which 
points at something that is not longer part of the solution space . . . 
(although at one point, people thought it might be).
>
>> A strawman proposal could identify these issues and some ways that they might be
>> addressed and then ask for criteria of what the UTC might deem sufficient.
> Perhaps this statement should be put into FAQ, instead of "you should
> propose your addition as a variation sequence"?

There are some additions that should be proposed for standardization, 
but the bar is relatively high.


A./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180718/2b272a1e/attachment.html>