Re: [gtk-i18n-list] Unicode PUA supporting issue in gtk+/pango

On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 11:34 +0900, mpsuzuki hiroshima-u ac jp wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:53:44 +0800
> Zhe Su <james su gmail com> wrote:
> >  IMO, it's unfair.
> Excuse me, am I accused as unfair?
> PRC (or anybody else) had proposed precomposed Tibetan glyphs
> to Unicode official inclusion? I could not find any mentions
> about such in "proposed new character"
> nor in "proposed new scripts"
> Oops, I think these pages are not maintained actively.

They have been proposed to Unicode and rejected. For the reason, the
Chinese delegation to ISO JTC1/SC2 started a practice of voting No to
some proposals of somehow obscure scripts. This is from personal memory
of attending an ISO JTC1/SC2 meeting in Tokyo in 2002, IIRC. (I even
personally talked to the Chinese delegation and explained that things
are working fine for the Arabic script (which uses shaping), and
similarly it can work fine for Tibetan *as is*.)

Them having been rejected is the reason they are not in the Unicode
pipeline. And they will remain so unless a very good reason is mentioned
to have them encoded separately. Unicode people already have a headache
for Korean, it having several equivalent ways of encoding, they really
don't want to repeat it for Tibetan (which is a harder script).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]