Re: Unicode/10646 History (was Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC)

[DougEwell2@cs.com]

In a message dated 2001-11-01 17:55:38 Pacific Standard Time, 
brunner@nic-naa.net writes:

>  If Pharonic Egyptian isn't as important as bidi and Arabic, what living
>  languages is it less important than?
>
>  How much time has the UTC spent on Pharonic Egyptian?
>  On Experanto?
>  On Klingon?
>  On Runic?
>  On Ogham?
>  On the rest of the epigraphic manias? Don't forget the time spent by the
>  Scripts Working Group.

The UTC has already done bidi and Arabic, long ago.  What is the point being 
made here, about other things being more important than bidi and Arabic?

Sorry for butting in.  I'm not a UTC member, I just wish I were sometimes.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California