I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal #standardization

Nathan Galt

Assuming there's no way to get the Consortium to accept anything more than the bare minimum of letters, I'd like to say that I support the 2013 proposal (a copy's at https://www.quikscript.net/proposals/2013.pdf). It adds 9 letters.

If it's possible to get the entire chunk of sixteen instead of the minimal nine, I'd ask for:

  1. h
  2. l
  3. m
  4. n
  5. ʍ
  6. ɬ
  7. x
  8. ks
  9. gz
  10. ɔɪ
  11. b
  12. θ
  13. ð

My rationale? The fewer dissimilar-to-Quikscript-readers-but-not-dissimilar-enough-for-the-Consortium letters there are, the better things'll be for Quikscript readers and writers.

My response to question 10a, "Can any of the proposed character(s) be considered to be similar (in appearance or function) to an existing character?" would still be "no", of course, but Michael Everson has conditioned me to expect the Consortium to disagree.

Regarding section 6 — I take it there's a unified sort order (the kind that sort(1) would produce) and a Quikscript-specific sort order? I don't think I have anything to add here.

Notwithstanding the above, at this point I'm ready to support the 2013 proposal as-is.

Join QuikScript@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.