At 08:10 -0500 2003-12-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Michael Everson wrote:
>>
>> At 02:16 -0800 2003-12-12, Sue Nudies down the Lane wrote:
>> >Personally I think the count runs well over a hundred. Would you
> > >include alternative spellings like Shavian, Qkwikscript, Unifon?
>> >Shorthand systems? Alphabets created for gaming, constructed
>> >languages, virtual worlds, etc?
>>
>> Writing systems are writing systems. Do you mean we would encode all
> > of the above in Unicode?
>
>'Being encoded in Unicode' is most certainly not a reasonable definition
>of "writing system." (Neither is 'writing system'.)

I was asking a practical question. If someone asks "Is Engsvanyali a
script?" I answer yes, whether or not it was created for gaming. If
someone asks "Is Deseret or Shavian or Unifon a script?" I answer
yes, whether or not it was created as an "alternative" spelling
system. My question referred to Sue's use of the word "include". Did
she mean "include in my definition" or did she mean "include as a
standardized part of the Unicode Standard"?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com