nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Jan 29 18:43:39 CET 2008
Peter Constable wrote:
> It's hardly reason to reject 4646bis, as Frank has suggested.
Maybe DG, EA, IC, &Co. are bad enough, and the "eur" example
is overkill. But if something like "eur" arrives here today
(as 639-2 bug) the 4646 rules only say "must be registered".
The reviewer could refuse to do this. But maybe he should
be *entitled* to delay registration until it is clear how
serious the constructed language, disputed territory, typo
on the UN page, or what else actually is.
> there are characters like U+0953 that are 100% junk.
If that's the case they failed to mention it in TUS 5.0 9.1:
"U+0951..U+0954 are a set of combining marks used in
transcription of Sanskrit scripts"
More information about the Ietf-languages