Proposed additions to the Runic Range 16A0-16F0 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY FORM TO ACCOMPANY SUBMISSIONS 1 FOR ADDITIONS TO THE REPERTOIRE OF ISO/IEC 10646TP PT Please fill all the sections A, B and C below. Please read Principles and Procedures Document (P & P) from HTUhttp://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/principles.html UTH for guidelines and details before filling this form. Please ensure you are using the latest Form from HTUhttp://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/summaryform.htmlUTH. See also HTUhttp://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/roadmaps.html UTH for latest Roadmaps. A. Administrative 1. Title: Proposed additions to the Runic Range, L2/09-312 2. Requester's name: Małgorzata Deroń 3. Requester type (Member body/Liaison/Individual contribution): Individual 4. Submission date: Oct. 29, 2009 5. Requester's reference (if applicable): prof. dr hab. Jacek Fisiak, prof. dr hab. Marcin Krygier 6. Choose one of the following: This is a complete proposal: Yes (or) More information will be provided later: B. Technical – General 1. Choose one of the following: a. This proposal is for a new script (set of characters): Proposed name of script: b. The proposal is for addition of character(s) to an existing block: Yes Name of the existing block: Runic Range 16A0-16F0 [Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement 1DC0-1DFF] 2. Number of characters in proposal: variable: 7 + (1) + 16/[12 + 1] see: 2. Justification (ii) & 4. Description 3. Proposed category (select one from below - see section 2.2 of P&P document): A-Contemporary B.1-Specialized (small collection) B.2-Specialized (large collection) C-Major extinct X D-Attested extinct E-Minor extinct F-Archaic Hieroglyphic or Ideographic G-Obscure or questionable usage symbols 4. Is a repertoire including character names provided? Yes a. If YES, are the names in accordance with the “character naming guidelines” in Annex L of P&P document? Yes b. Are the character shapes attached in a legible form suitable for review? Yes 5. Who will provide the appropriate computerized font (ordered preference: True Type, or PostScript format) for publishing the standard? Requester, True Type If available now, identify source(s) for the font (include address, e-mail, ftp-site, etc.) and indicate the tools used: [email protected], FontCreator 5.6 Home Edition 6. References: a. Are references (to other character sets, dictionaries, descriptive texts etc.) provided? Yes b. Are published examples of use (such as samples from newspapers, magazines, or other sources) of proposed characters attached? Yes 7. Special encoding issues: Does the proposal address other aspects of character data processing (if applicable) such as input, presentation, sorting, searching, indexing, transliteration etc. (if yes please enclose information)? No 8. Additional Information: Submitters are invited to provide any additional information about Properties of the proposed Character(s) or Script that will assist in correct understanding of and correct linguistic processing of the proposed character(s) or script. Examples of such properties are: Casing information, Numeric information, Currency information, Display behaviour information such as line breaks, widths etc., Combining behaviour, Spacing behaviour, Directional behaviour, Default Collation behaviour, relevance in Mark Up contexts, Compatibility equivalence and other Unicode normalization related information. See the Unicode standard at HTUhttp://www.unicode.orgUTH for such information on other scripts. Also see HTUhttp://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UCD.htmlUTH and associated Unicode Technical Reports for information needed for consideration by the Unicode Technical Committee for inclusion in the Unicode Standard. 1 TP PT Form number: N3152-F (Original 1994-10-14; Revised 1995-01, 1995-04, 1996-04, 1996-08, 1999-03, 2001-05, 2001-09, 2003-11, 2005-01, 2005-09, 2005-10, 2007-03, 2008-05) 1 Proposed additions to the Runic Range 16A0-16F0 C. Technical - Justification 1. Has this proposal for addition of character(s) been submitted before? Yes If YES explain This proposal was originally submitted on Sept. 4 2009, following which the requester received valuable feedback from Rick McGowan, Karl Pentzlin, Peter Constable and Deborah W. Anderson, and revised the proposal accordingly. 2. Has contact been made to members of the user community (for example: National Body, user groups of the script or characters, other experts, etc.)? No If YES, with whom? If YES, available relevant documents: 3. Information on the user community for the proposed characters (for example: size, demographics, information technology use, or publishing use) is included? Scholarly community Reference: 4. The context of use for the proposed characters (type of use; common or rare) Rare Reference: 5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community? Yes If YES, where? Reference: Scholarly publications on runology; see: 3. Bibliography 6. After giving due considerations to the principles in the P&P document must the proposed characters be entirely in the BMP? No If YES, is a rationale provided? If YES, reference: 7. Should the proposed characters be kept together in a contiguous range (rather than being scattered)? No 8. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation form of an existing character or character sequence? Yes If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided? Yes If YES, reference: Enclosed; see: 2. Justification (i) 9. Can any of the proposed characters be encoded using a composed character sequence of either existing characters or other proposed characters? No If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided? If YES, reference: 10. Can any of the proposed character(s) be considered to be similar (in appearance or function) to an existing character? Yes If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided? Yes If YES, reference: Enclosed; see: 2. Justification (i) 11. Does the proposal include use of combining characters and/or use of composite sequences? [Yes] If YES, is a rationale for such use provided? [Yes] If YES, reference: [Enclosed; see: 2. Justification (ii)] Is a list of composite sequences and their corresponding glyph images (graphic symbols) provided? No If YES, reference: 12. Does the proposal contain characters with any special properties such as control function or similar semantics? No If YES, describe in detail (include attachment if necessary) 13. Does the proposal contain any Ideographic compatibility character(s)? No If YES, is the equivalent corresponding unified ideographic character(s) identified? If YES, reference: 2 Proposed additions to the Runic Range 16A0-16F0 16A 16B 16C 16D 16E 16F xxx 0 ᚠ ᚰ ᛀ ᛐ ᛠ ᛰ 16A0 16B0 16C0 16D0 16E0 16F0 xxx0 1 ᚡ ᚱ ᛁ ᛑ ᛡ 16A1 16B1 16C1 16D1 16E1 16F1 xxx1 2 ᚢ ᚲ ᛂ ᛒ ᛢ 16A2 16B2 16C2 16D2 16E2 16F2 xxx2 3 ᚣ ᚳ ᛃ ᛓ ᛣ 16A3 16B3 16C3 16D3 16E3 16F3 xxx3 4 ᚤ ᚴ ᛄ ᛔ ᛤ 16A4 16B4 16C4 16D4 16E4 16F4 xxx4 5 ᚥ ᚵ ᛅ ᛕ ᛥ 16A5 16B5 16C5 16D5 16E5 16F5 xxx5 6 ᚦ ᚶ ᛆ ᛖ ᛦ 16A6 16B6 16C6 16D6 16E6 16F6 xxx6 7 ᚧ ᚷ ᛇ ᛗ ᛧ 16A7 16B7 16C7 16D7 16E6 16F7 xxx7 8 ᚨ ᚸ ᛈ ᛘ ᛨ 16A8 16B8 16C8 16D8 16E8 16F8 xxx8 9 ᚩ ᚹ ᛉ ᛙ ᛩ 16A9 16B9 16C9 16D9 16E9 16F9 xxx9 A ᚪ ᚺ ᛊ ᛚ ᛪ 16AA 16BA 16CA 16DA 16EA 16FA xxxA B ᚫ ᚻ ᛋ ᛛ ᛫ 16AB 16BB 16CB 16DB 16EB 16FB xxxB C ᚬ ᚼ ᛌ ᛜ ᛬ 16AC 16BC 16CC 16DC 16EC 16FC xxxC D ᚭ ᚽ ᛍ ᛝ ᛭ 16AD 16BD 16CD 16DD 16ED 16FD xxxD E ᚮ ᚾ ᛎ ᛞ ᛮ 16AE 16BE 16CE 16DE 16EE 16FE xxxE F ᚯ ᚿ ᛏ ᛟ ᛯ 16AF 16BF 16CF 16DF 16EF 16FF xxxF 3 Proposed additions to the Runic Range 16A0-16F0 1. Introduction The Unicode Standard Runic Range 16A0-16FF currently encompasses 81 runes and 5 runic alphabets: (1) Elder Futhark, (2) Anglo-Frisian/Anglo-Saxon runes, (3a) long-branch runes, (3b) short-twig runes, and (4) medieval runes – to judge from names assigned to characters, e.g. RUNIC LETTER FEHU FEOH FE F, RUNIC LETTER SIGEL LONG-BRANCH-SOL S, RUNIC LETTER SHORT-TWIG-SOL S. Staveless runes and Dalecarlian runes (designated here as (3c) and (5), respectively) are not included in the Runic Range, although some characters from these two alphabets can be represented using the existing set. I would like to propose two groups of additions to the Standard: (i) additions to the existing 5 runic alphabets: (ii) additions representing staveless runes: but excluding Dalecarlian runes, for reasons which will be discussed in section 2 (iii). 2. Justification (i) Any discussion pertaining to runes in their entirety has to deal with a time-span of more than a millennium and a geographical area stretching from Italy in the south to Iceland and Scandinavia in the north, to the border of Europe and Asia in the east. Because of such wide temporal and territorial stretch, one can expect very little uniformity, but also encounter overlapping of forms due to mutual influences, changes of appearance and meaning, and the reflection of the material used in the shape produced. Scholars have traditionally claimed that the script was developed in the first place for cutting upon wood. (…) [T]he Germanic runes, and the Anglo-Saxon graphs that derive from them, are designed for incising in such a soft, grained material. (…) Horizontal lines (which might get lost in the grain) and curves, rounded loops and circles (hard to cut) would be avoided. (…) When rune- masters chiselled or punched their texts on stone, scratched them on metal or cut them in bone, the rationale for a straight-line script ceased, and forms with curved lines and rounded loops or bows appeared, as for ‘f’, for ‘u’, for ‘w’.