datapacrat at gmail.com
Sun Sep 15 11:20:25 CEST 2013
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2013, at 23:06, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com> wrote:
>> Is your (apparent) support for this variant subtag to be interpreted as that you have given up the idea of encoding Unifon as a script separate from the Latin script? (Cmp. http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4195.pdf.)
> That document offers options. Discussion with the UTC suggested that Latin variant was the better option.
If you don't mind my asking, has Unifon gotten any closer to being
incorporated into Unicode than that PDF's suggestions?
Thank you for your time,
"Then again, I could be wrong."
More information about the Ietf-languages