ISO 15924 : missing indication of support for Syriac variants

Philippe Verdy via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Sat Jul 20 04:44:03 CDT 2019


I had strange browser effects/caching issues: I did not see several "Age"
values in that page (possibly because of a broken cache), and even my
script did not detect it. I have already fixed that on my side and cleaned
my cache to get a proper view of that page. Sorry for this disturbance, I
trusted too much what my small semi-atuomated tool had collected (but I've
not detected where it could have failed to parse the content, so I updated
my own data manually). ISO 15924 does not have lot of data that cannot be
edited by human.

Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 18:10, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at sonic.net> a
écrit :

>
> On 7/17/2019 4:54 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
>
> then the Unicode version (age) used for Hieroglyphs should also be
> assigned to Hieratic.
>
> It is already.
>
>
> 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.
>
> It *is* considered unified with Egyptian hieroglyphs, until such time as
> anyone would make a serious case that the Unicode Standard (and students of
> the Egyptian hieroglyphs, in both their classic, monumental forms and in
> hieratic) would be better served by a disunification.
>
> Note that *many* cursive forms of scripts are not easily "supported" by
> out-of-the-box plain text implementations, for obvious reasons. And in the
> case of Egyptian hieroglyphs, it would probably be a good strategy to first
> get some experience in implementations/fonts supporting the Unicode 12.0
> controls for hieroglyphs, before worrying too much about what does or
> doesn't work to represent hieratic texts adequately. (Demotic is clearly a
> different case.)
>
>
> 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*,
>
> That latter part of that statement (highlighted) is false, as is easily
> determined by simple inspection of the Egyh entry on:
>
> https://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html
>
> --Ken
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190720/a35a25b0/attachment.html>


More information about the Unicode mailing list