--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@...> wrote:

> Michael never said that constructed
> scripts should not be encoded. He did accurately classify Mandombe

as a

> constructed script, though.

Among other things, Michael said,

"Personne n'a pas suggeré que cette écriture soit
ajouté au Roadmap, par exemple.

Elle me semble qu'un ConScript, dans autres mots."

"Cet écriture, comme chose trop
compliqué, illisible, etc, me semble qu'un
candidat pour le PUA"


"C'est un écriture
construite,... Mais comme système d'écriture pratique, c'est
plus que douteux comme candidat pout le jeu
universel de caractères. Mais si vous voulez
utiliser le PUA, voir
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/"

In any case, there was certainly some response to Michael about its
being taught and used. However, to what extent I cannot say.

I think that Michael may be saying that it *appears* to him to be too
complicated to be of any practical use and therefore he doubts that it
is used.

But I only want to know if it actually is used, not how it *looks* to
other people, since it looks readable to me, and many scripts appear
to be complicated, illegible, constructed and so on. That wouldn't be
relevant so why mention it.

However, I am sure it would be very tricky from a font development
point of view. I have no idea how that would work.

Suzanne