Proposed letters, 0C5B & 0C5C, in Telugu

Lisa Moore lisa at unicode.org
Thu Jul 30 23:37:20 CDT 2020


Yup, I agree...Lisa

On 7/30/2020 8:11 PM, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote:
>
> +1
>
> *From:*Unicore <unicore-bounces at unicode.org> *On Behalf Of *Tex via 
> Unicore
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2020 3:24 PM
> *To:* 'Markus Scherer' <markus.icu at gmail.com>; 'John Hudson' 
> <john at tiro.ca>; unicore at unicode.org
> *Subject:* RE: Proposed letters, 0C5B & 0C5C, in Telugu
>
> *“**Writing systems are shared by multiple languages and multiple 
> traditions, past and present.”*
>
> **
>
> That statement should be a key point made prominently (and repeatedly) 
> in introductions to Unicode, scripts, etc.
>
> It is an underlying foundation that needs to be understood and it 
> mitigates the many objections based on personal or community experiences.
>
> Well stated Markus.
>
> Tex
>
> **
>
> *From:*Unicore [mailto:unicore-bounces at unicode.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Markus Scherer via Unicore
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2020 1:10 PM
> *To:* John Hudson
> *Cc:* unicore UnicoRe Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: Proposed letters, 0C5B & 0C5C, in Telugu
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM John Hudson via Unicore 
> <unicore at unicode.org <mailto:unicore at unicode.org>> wrote:
>
>     there is a reasonable, general question to ask about sufficiency of
>     attestation when it comes to very rare characters that might only
>     occur
>     in one or two texts, perhaps the invention of a single author, not
>     embraced by any subsequent tradition of use. And one response to that
>     question is 'Any attestation is sufficient', which has the benefit of
>     removing the need to come up with applicable critieria of sufficiency
>     that would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
>
> Right. As far as I understand, there are thousands of Chinese 
> characters that have been used very rarely, or even just once in a 
> dictionary or in a database of person names. They are real, they are 
> encoded, but they are not common.
>
> Implementers have to make choices, and sometimes it makes sense to 
> support a subset.
>
> If a font or keyboard vendor wants to support the entire Sinhala 
> /_script_/, then they will have glyphs for all relevant code points -- 
> whether inside or outside the Sinhala block -- and all relevant 
> /sequences/, and punctuation, etc.
>
> If someone cares to only support the subset needed for common, modern 
> use of the Sinhala /_language_/, then they can define such subsets or 
> look for organizations that have defined them. (E.g., Unicode CLDR has 
> sets of "exemplar characters" for many languages.)
>
> I understand a visceral reaction of "this does not belong". I was 
> originally not in favor of adding a capital sharp s 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%E1%BA%9E> (Latin script, 
> German language) because it was not part of the German orthography and 
> wasn't taught in school etc. However, it clearly existed and was used, 
> and once evidence was presented showing that it was more than using a 
> lowercase ß in all-caps words, it got added to the Unicode standard, 
> and the official orthography now acknowledges it (as optional).
>
> Writing systems are shared by multiple languages and multiple 
> traditions, past and present.
>
> Best regards,
>
> markus
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20200730/9706bd0b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Unicode mailing list