Talk:Tibetan (Unicode block)

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Block deletion

@Cyrus noto3at bulaga:, @BabelStone: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK DRMcCreedy (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]