On 1/17/2012 4:43 AM, satai wrote:
I would like to address two textual issues in this proposal.
These are not actually textual issues in the *proposal*, but rather
issues regarding
the annotation of the code charts for these additions.
1) U+10C8—U+10CC and U+2D28—U+2D2C are marked as reserved within
"Additional letters for Ossetian" sets of the Khutsuri charts, but,
obviously, they are in general reserve pool for both Georgian
blocks. So, why are they specified as reserved in "Additional letters
for Ossetian" sets? Will not it confuse/mislead a reader? And what
will happen to "Additional letters for Ossetian" sets if one day
something non-Ossetian will be proposed for, say, U+10C8?
Then the annotations will change. The subheads in the name list do not
"reserve" anything for
particular use. They change as appropriate, based on what future
encoding decisions the
committees make.
2) Since both Khutsuri YN and AEN letters are attested for Ossetian
only, appropriate sets in the Khutsuri sections are named "Additional
letters for Ossetian" (the corresponding sets in the Mkhedruli
section are called "Additional letters for Mingrelian and Svan" and
"Additional letters for Ossetian and Abkhaz"). However, Georgian YN is
used not only for Ossetian, but for Mingrelian, Svan and Abkhaz as
well. And nowadays Khutsuri is used by Georgian Orthodox Church, so
there is a possibility for using YN in Mingrelian or Svan texts in
future. Maybe it is better to name the additional sets in the Khutsuri
charts in more neutral way?
I would suggest that you make this comment as a contribution to the UTC
via the contact
form:
http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html
That will get the feedback into the hopper for review by the UTC, which
may decide to update
the annotations in the code charts accordingly in the future.
--Ken
