Talk:Tibetan (Unicode block)

Block deletion
, Section 3.A of Unicode 1.0.1 states the Tibetan block was deleted. Unless I'm reading this wrong I think the recent changes from 1.0.1 to 1.1 should be reverted to match the reference. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that it is debatable whether Tibetan was removed in 1.0.1 or 1.1. The 1.0.1 Notice does indeed suggest that Tibetan and the Thai/Lao Phonetic Order Vowels signs were no longer part of Unicode 1.0.1, but that notice really describes what Unicode 1.1 will look like rather than describing the contents of an actual released version of the Unicode Standard. Ken Whistler, in his reconstructions of Unicode 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 data takes 1.0.1 to refer to Unicode 1.0 vols. 1 and 2 with the changes specified in vol. 2 Section 1.3 (Specific Changes to Align Code Positions and Repertoire), and implies in the last paragraph of the Unicode 1.0 page that the 1.0.1 Notice does not really reflect he actual version 1.0.1. I think we need to find more solid evidence about the status of the 1.0.1 Notice, and in the meantime we should keep the removal of Tibetan at 1.1, in keeping with the reconstructed 1.0.1 data on the Unicode web site. BabelStone (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK DRMcCreedy (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Past tense
Shouldn't the article be rewritten to past-tense since the block has been deleted/removed from the consortium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krestenlaust (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)