Zinh - Code for inherited script and governance of ISO 15924

[Michael Everson]

On 26 Feb 2009, at 07:44, Lang Gérard wrote:

> I completely agree.

With what?

> 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  
> Unicode;

Oh boy! A consipiracy theory!

> (ii)-the proposition to add inside ISO 15924 a new entry named "Code  
> for inherited script/codet pour écriture heritée", with code  
> elements ("Zinh", 994), is practically uniquely in the interest of  
> Unicode and does not clearly  qualify as a good candidate for an  
> entry inside ISO 15924  (Because, in particular, ISO 15924 title is  
> "Codes for the representation of names of scripts", so that entries  
> of ISO 15924 must be "names of scripts", where a script is defined  
> as"Set of characters used for the written form of one or more  
> languages", so that a script must be used to write some language)

Incorrect. In the first place there are several of these "special"  
tags registered already:

Zinh
994
Code for inherited script
codet pour écriture héritée
Inherited
2009-02-23

Zmth
995
Mathematical notation
notation mathématique
—
2007-11-26

Zsym
996
Symbols
symboles
—
2007-11-26

Zxxx
997
Code for unwritten documents
codet pour les documents non écrites
—
2007-06-13

Zyyy
998
Code for undetermined script
codet pour écriture indéterminée
Common
2004-05-29

Zzzz
999
Code for uncoded script
codet pour écriture non codée
Unknown
2006-10-10

Some of these were used in Unicode, and have, in the field before the  
date, Property Value Aliases (Inherited, Common, Unknown). The script  
property previously used two Private-Use codes, namely Qaac for Coptic  
(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  
committee that decides these things, which includes people who are not  
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  
in ISO 15924, and these proposals were rejected in favour of subtags  
here.

Zinh was accepted on foot of the arguments put forward for it.

> I will not add any other comment.

Please do not.

> Cordialement.

Maybe next time?

> Gérard LANG

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com