ISO 15924 : missing indication of support for Syriac variants

Wed Jul 17 18:54:52 CDT 2019

But my concern is in fact valid as well for Egyptian Hieratic (considered
in Chapter 14 to be "unified" with the Hieroglyphs, and being a cursive
variant, currently not supported in any font because of the very complex
set of ligatures this would require, and that may not even work properly
with the existing markup notations used with Hieroglyphs).
But if the "Manuel de codage" for Egyptian Hieroglyphs (describing a markup
notation) contains extensions to represent the Hieratic variants with the
unified Hieroglyphs, then the Unicode version (age) used for Hieroglyphs
should also be assigned to Hieratic.

In fact the ligatures system for the "cursive" Egyptian Hieratic is so
complex (and may also have its own variants showing its progression from
Hieroglyphs to Demotic or Old Coptic), that probably Hieratic should no
longer be considered "unified" with Hieroglyphs, and its existing ISO 15924
code is then not represented at all in Unicode.

For now ISO 15924 still does not consider Egyptian Hieratic to be "unified"
with Egyptian Hieroglyphs; this is not indicated in its descriptive names
given in English or French with a suffix like "(cursive variant of Egyptian
Hieroglyphs)", and it has no "Unicode Age" version given, as if it was
still not encoded at all by Unicode, and then Chapter 14 of the standard
(in its section about Hieroglyphs where Hieratic is cited once) is probably
misleading, waiting for further studies.

And I'm unable to find any non-proprietary (interoperable?) attempt to
encode Hieratic, the only attempts being with Hieroglyphs.

Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 01:16, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> a écrit :

> Sorry I misread (with an automated tool) an old dataset where these "3.0"
> versions were indicated in an incorrect form
>
> Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 01:07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> a
> écrit :
>
>> Note also that there are variants registered with Unicode versions (Age)
>> for symbols, even if they don't have any assigned Unicode alias, but this
>> is not a problem.
>> 994 Zinh Code for inherited script codet pour écriture héritée Inherited
>> 2009-02-23
>> 995 *Zmth <https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Category:ISO_15924:Zmth>* Mathematical
>> notation notation mathématique 3.2 2007-11-26
>> 993 *Zsye <https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Category:ISO_15924:Zsye>* Symbols
>> (Emoji variant) symboles (variante émoji) 6.0 2015-12-16
>> 996 *Zsym
>> <https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Category:ISO_15924:Zsym&action=edit&redlink=1>*
>> Symbols symboles 1.1 2007-11-26
>> The Unicode version is an important information which allows determining
>> that texts created in a given language (or notation), and written in these
>> scripts, can be written using the UCS.
>>
>> Weren't the 3 variants of Syriac unified in Unicode (even if they may be
>> distinguished in ISO 15924, for example to allow selecting a suitable but
>> preferred sets of fonts, like this is commonly used for Chinese Mandarin,
>> Arabic, Japanese, Korean or Latin) ?
>>
>>
>> Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 00:55, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> The ISO 15924/RA reference page contains indication of support in
>>> Unicode for variants of various scripts such as Aran, Latf, Latg, Hanb,
>>> Hans, Hant:.
>>> 160 *Arab* Arabic arabe Arabic 1.1 2004-05-01
>>> 161 *Aran* Arabic (Nastaliq variant) arabe (variante nastalique) 1.1
>>> 2014-11-15
>>> ...
>>> 503 *Hanb* Han with Bopomofo (alias for Han + Bopomofo) han avec
>>> bopomofo (alias pour han + bopomofo) 1.1 2016-01-19
>>>
>>> 500 *Hani* Han (Hanzi, Kanji, Hanja) idéogrammes han (sinogrammes) Han
>>> 1.1 2009-02-23
>>>
>>> 501 *Hans* Han (Simplified variant) idéogrammes han (variante
>>> simplifiée) 1.1 2004-05-29
>>> 502 *Hant* Han (Traditional variant) idéogrammes han (variante
>>> traditionnelle) 1.1 2004-05-29
>>> ...
>>> 217 *Latf* Latin (Fraktur variant) latin (variante brisée) 1.1
>>> 2004-05-01
>>> 216 *Latg* Latin (Gaelic variant) latin (variante gaélique) 1.1
>>> 2004-05-01
>>> 215 *Latn* Latin latin Latin 1.1 2004-05-01
>>> ...
>>> There are other entries for aliases or mixed script also for Japanese
>>> and Korean.
>>>
>>> But for Syriac variants this is missing and this is the only script for
>>> which this occurs:
>>> 135 *Syrc* Syriac syriaque Syriac 3.0 2004-05-01
>>> 138 Syre Syriac (Estrangelo variant) syriaque (variante estranghélo)
>>> 2004-05-01
>>> 137 Syrj Syriac (Western variant) syriaque (variante occidentale)
>>> 2004-05-01
>>> 136 Syrn Syriac (Eastern variant) syriaque (variante orientale)
>>> 2004-05-01
>>> Why is there no Unicode version given for these 3 variants ?
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190718/d696921f/attachment-0001.html>