[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

[Michael Everson]

At 18:13 -0500 2003-04-09, Peter_Constable at sil.org wrote:
>Kenneth Whistler wrote on 04/09/2003 04:27:36 PM:
>  > That doesn't mean that labels in 15894 might not still be
>                                 ^^^15924^^^
>>  appropriate, for whatever purpose. This, because 15894 contains
>>  other things than scripts per se.
>
>In my mind, this is the bottom line. We very likely could never reach an
>international consensus on categorising these as "scripts" or "script
>variants", but I would hope that we could reach a consensus that adding
>identifiers for them in 15924 serves a practical and important purpose and
>does not exceed reasonable expectations as to what the purpose of 15924
>should be.

15924 codes scripts and script variants.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com