Tue Nov 18 23:43:20 CET 2008
complete or the mails with the most compelling arguments) the motivation =
to move from the private Qaai to a public code. Although in general =
should not be a reliance on private codes, until I understand a use case
where Zinh is needed for labeling shared or transmitted text, this seems =
be a case where private is just fine. (My 2 cents.)
As I said, my intent is not to have an extended debate, it is a done =
now. Some enlightenment would be nice if there are use cases for it.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael =
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:35 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Zinh - Code for inherited script and governance of ISO =
On 26 Feb 2009, at 07:44, Lang G=E9rard wrote:
> I completely agree.
> In my opinion the real question is:
> "If it had not been the case that:
> (i)-ISO 15924 Registration Authority has been delegated by ISO to =20
Oh boy! A consipiracy theory!
> (ii)-the proposition to add inside ISO 15924 a new entry named "Code =20
> for inherited script/codet pour =E9criture herit=E9e", with code =20
> elements ("Zinh", 994), is practically uniquely in the interest of =20
> Unicode and does not clearly qualify as a good candidate for an =20
> entry inside ISO 15924 (Because, in particular, ISO 15924 title is =20
> "Codes for the representation of names of scripts", so that entries =20
> of ISO 15924 must be "names of scripts", where a script is defined =20
> as"Set of characters used for the written form of one or more =20
> languages", so that a script must be used to write some language)
Incorrect. In the first place there are several of these "special" =20
tags registered already:
Code for inherited script
codet pour =E9criture h=E9rit=E9e
Code for unwritten documents
codet pour les documents non =E9crites
Code for undetermined script
codet pour =E9criture ind=E9termin=E9e
Code for uncoded script
codet pour =E9criture non cod=E9e
Some of these were used in Unicode, and have, in the field before the =20
date, Property Value Aliases (Inherited, Common, Unknown). The script =20
property previously used two Private-Use codes, namely Qaac for Coptic =20
(now replaced by Copt), and Qaai (now replaced by Zinh).
> WOULD SUCH A REQUEST HAVE ANY CHANCE OF SUCCESS ?"
Kindly do not shout.
As Registrar of ISO 15924, I should like to point out that we have a =20
committee that decides these things, which includes people who are not =20
members of the Consortium.
> And if the answer to this question is CERTAINLY NOT ?
As I recall Mark Davis proposed Polytonic Greek and IPA to be scripts =20
in ISO 15924, and these proposals were rejected in favour of subtags =20
Zinh was accepted on foot of the arguments put forward for it.
> I will not add any other comment.
Please do not.
Maybe next time?
> G=E9rard LANG
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages