For all I know, it is only a de facto matter.

Amir E. Aharoni <> 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 ‏<>:
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.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:36, Amir E. Aharoni <> wrote:

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 mailing list
Langcom mailing list