Re: Level of Unicode support required for various languages

On 10/26/07, David Starner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are there a significant
> number of characters that would rarely see print today even in
> scholarly editions of old works? That's the convention used for other
> works.

This was less than clear; let me try again.

Are there a significant number of Han ideographs in Extension A that
would rarely see print today even in scholarly editions of old works?
The rest of the world's scholars have the scripts they use encoded in
the BMP and counted as modern use--albeit because they mostly write in
Latin (Gothic, Cuniforme, etc.), Greek, Cyrillic, or Hebrew (most
Semetic writings), probably Arabic and Devanagari, scripts that are in
modern use and can be included in the BMP in whole.