The path to Unicode standardization #standardization

Nathan Galt

I have a couple of pages in the pipe for on the subject, but they’re not quite publication-ready at this point. I’ll start a proper new thread on the subject to properly open this can of worms again, but here’s a capsule summary, as I understand it:

  • In 2007, Michael Everson proposes Shavian Quikscript extensions. He notes that there are some letters that look identical or at least fairly similar in both Quikscript and Shavian and proposes a two-row set of extensions, plus angled parentheses. You can view it at
  • In 2013, Michael Everson has a second proposal. This proposal shoves the angled parentheses into the Miscellaneous Punctuation block and uses only one block of 16 (with room to spare) for the Quikscript letters. You can view it at
  • The 2013 proposal was controversial. Michael Everson seemed to think that reducing the block count would help it get accepted, especially since the Shavian proposal just squeaked in. I and other people thought that this was too unified and would make it difficult, if not impossible, to be able to develop good fonts that can display both Quikscript and Shavian at the same time.
  • Another person here whose name I forget said something like “Did the Consortium not learn anything in the Greek/Coptic disunification mess?” While an inside-baseball reference, I later learned that this captured the problem (from my view) nicely. It’s a massive pain in the rear to users of somewhat-different scripts to have to share characters, especially for the minority users. While I’m not sure we’re a numerical minority compared to Shavianists, we’re Johnny-come-latelies and I expect most every-script font (Noto Sans, Segoe UI Historic, etc.), to cater to Shavian tastes in letterforms first, leaving Quikscript users unable to have letterforms they use. goes into some of the hassles Coptic readers and fontmakers have; I’ve made similar arguments arguing that I shouldn’t have to read Shavian's ·𐑱 as Quikscript’s ·Eight.
  • Between 2013 and now, I’ve developed better arguments in favor of maximally-disunified encodings, like “way more text sent/received these days isn’t sent with fonts under the sender’s or receiver’s control”. (I’ll go into this more for a later worm-can opening.)

On Nov 8, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Paige <paige@...> wrote:

Good to hear from you again, Michael.  I am in the same boat.  I have a number of Yahoo Groups as well, but they are all smaller than QS, and I can't afford nor justify the transfer fee for the rest of them.

I know there was talk about QS extensions back in 2013, and I would like to see that happen.  I am not knowledgeable about the process.  Perhaps you can point me to a site that could help me learn some of the basics.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.