For all I know, it is only a de facto matter.
Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> schrieb am So., 14. Apr.
2019, 18:49:
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