Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Mark E. Shoulson
>|
>| I note that Shavian is there, but Visible Speech isn't.
>
>The artificial scripts section is admittedly somewhat spotty. The
>phonetics part is even worse.
>
>

Visible Speech just doesn't get the coverage it deserves... Well, when
we can get it into Unicode, we'll have something to start with.

>| Nor Blissymbolics.
>
>Yep.
>
>

Should it be?

>| Does the IPA count as a writing system, or is it just an extended
>| form of Latin?
>
>I'd consider it a phonetic writing system, like Dania. (Whether it
>should count or not depends what you want to count. :)
>
>

And I'd have considered it an extended use of Latin, actually.

>| And the International Teaching Alphabet? And Unifon?
>
>Dunno.
>
>

Those are... um... modifications of Latin? Modified enough to be
"different"? Probably, yeah. They're not just special fonts.

>| We have Rongorongo, but not the Phaistos disk inscription. Does
>| that count as a writing system?
>
>It's not clear that it is one, and almost nothing is known about it,
>so I've preferred to leave it out.
>
>

Fair enough.

>| The question is probably no easier to resolve than how many angels
>| can dance on the head of a pin, but I suppose any list is a start.
>
>What's really needed is some definition of what it is that's being
>counted. Given that it's possible to produce a matching list.
>
>

A great many issues can be resolved if the underlying definition is
spelled out. Naturally, that causes its own problems, as there will
always be fights about the definition, and there probably isn't one
that's going to satisfy everyone. But yeah, defining your terms will help.

~mark