Hoi,
Unicode has funding drives where they ask the PUBLIC to support one
character.. Why not have the WMF fund the missing characters in scripts we
need for our projects?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:49, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>
wrote:
I'm not talking a missing font, even though this
would be a problem, too.
I'm talking about scripts that aren't encoded at all, for example the
Zaghawa alphabet.
And I understand, of course, that it's technically problematic. What I'm
asking is whether there's an explicit written Language committee policy
about it, or is it just a de facto practical matter.
בתאריך יום א׳, 14 באפר׳ 2019, 19:41, מאת Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>gt;:
Hoi,
In the past the WMF has funded the creation of a Unicode font. Having a
Unicode font is essential when we are to support it in MediaWiki. Not
having a fully developed font is what hinders the necessary follow up of
projects in SignWriting ie all the signed languages.
I do agree that a language with a default script not supported in Unicode
is hugely problematic.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:36, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Hi,
I have a vague recollection that we require Unicode support to create a
new language, but I cannot find it in the policy. Do we indeed require this
explicitly, or am I just making things up?
Or is it just a de facto practicality—that it's technically difficult to
host a language in a script that isn't supposed in Unicode?
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom