JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2612-7
L2/03-193
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY FORM TO ACCOMPANY SUBMISSIONSFOR ADDITIONS TO THE REPERTOIRE OF ISO/IEC 106461
Please fill all the sections A, B and C below.
(Please read Principles and Procedures Document for guidelines and details before filling this form.)
See http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/summaryform.html for latest Form.
See http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/principles.html for latest Principles and Procedures document.
See http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/roadmaps.html for latest roadmaps.

A. Administrative
1. Title: Proposal to encode additional Punctuation Characters in the UCS
2. Requester's name: Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Project (University of California, Irvine) and UTC
3. Requester type (Member body/Liaison/Individual contribution):
Expert Contribution
4. Submission date:2003-06-11
5. Requester's reference (if applicable):
6. This is a complete proposal:
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:
Supplemental Punctuation (2E0D-2E0F)
2. Number of characters in proposal:
3
3. Proposed category (see section II, Character Categories):
Category C
4. Proposed Level of Implementation (1, 2 or 3) (see clause 14, ISO/IEC 10646-1: 2000):
Level 1Is a rationale provided for the choice?
If Yes, reference: ________________________________________________________________
5. Is a repertoire including character names provided?
Yesa. If YES, are the names in accordance with the 'character naming guidelines
in Annex L of ISO/IEC 10646-1: 2000?
Yes
b. Are the character shapes attached in a legible form suitable for review?
Yes
6. Who will provide the appropriate computerized font (ordered preference: True Type, or PostScript format) for
publishing the standard?
David Perry and TLG Project (True Type)If available now, identify source(s) for the font (include address, e-mail, ftp-site, etc.) and indicate the tools
used:TLG Project, mcpantel@uci.edu
7. 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
8. 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
9. Additional Information:
The property for these characters is Po
Submitters are invited to provide any additional information about Properties of the proposed Character(s) or Script thatwill assist in correct understanding of and correct linguistic processing of the proposed character(s) or script. Examplesof such properties are: Casing information, Numeric information, Currency information, Display behaviour informationsuch 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 relatedinformation. See the Unicode standard at http://www.unicode.org for such information on other scripts. Also see
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeCharacterDatabase.html and associated Unicode Technical Reports
for information needed for consideration by the Unicode Technical Committee for inclusion in the Unicode Standard.

1Form number: N2352-F (Original 1994-10-14; Revised 1995-01, 1995-04, 1996-04, 1996-08, 1999-03, 2001-05, 2001-09)

C. Technical - Justification
1. Has this proposal for addition of character(s) been submitted before?
NoIf YES explain _________________________________________________________________________2. Has contact been made to members of the user community (for example: National Body, user groups of the script orcharacters, other experts, etc.)?
Yes
If YES, with whom?

Proposal has been reviewed by Professors Roger Bagnall, Columbia University, John Oates, Duke
University, William Johnson, University of Cincinnati, Michael Haslam, University of California, Los
Angeles. Earlier versions of this proposal have been posted online and received comments bymembers of the profession.
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?
Scholars
Reference: ___________________________________________________________________________

Greek texts
Reference:
See proposal
5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
Yes
If YES, where? Character present in various editions of Greek texts and used byscholars of Greek.
Reference:
See proposal
4. The context of use for the proposed characters (type of use; common or rare)

6. After giving due considerations to the principles in Principles and Procedures document (a WG 2 standingdocument) must the proposed characters be entirely in the BMP?
Yes
If YES, is a rationale provided?
Accordance with the Roadmap
If YES, reference:
7. Should the proposed characters be kept together in a contiguous range (rather than being scattered)?
Yes
8. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation form of an existing
character or character sequence?
No
If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided?
______________
If YES, reference: ________________________________________________________
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 appearanceor function) to an existing character?
No
If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided?
______________
If YES, reference: ________________________________________________________
11. Does the proposal include use of combining characters and/or use of composite sequences(see clauses 4.12 and 4.14 in ISO/IEC 10646-1: 2000)?
No
If YES, is a rationale for such use provided?
If YES, reference: _______________________________________________________Is a list of composite sequences and their corresponding glyph images (graphic symbols)
provided?
______________
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: ________________________________________________________

Introduction
Ancient Greek scribes generally wrote continuously without separating letters into words. To
facilitate reading of ancient texts, editorial characters were added. These characters have beenpreserved and are also used in modern editions of the texts.
The Two Dot Punctuation was used to indicate the end of a sentence or change of speaker. Thelower dot should be placed at the baseline, the upper dot should be placed at the top of the line.
The Four Dot Punctuation and Dotted Cross were used in the margin as highlighter marks toindicate points of interest in the text or the final stanza of a hymn. For the Four Dot Punctuation,
the middle dots appear half way up the line. The upper dot appears just above the line and thelower dot just below the line (see examples below).
The property for these characters is “Po”.

Bibliography
Diekamp, F., Doctrina patrum de incarnatione verbi (Münster, 1907)
M. Erler, Über Vorsehung und Schicksal [Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 111] (Meisenheimam Glan, 1979)
Grenfell, B.P. & Hunt, A.S. et al, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, multiple volumes (London, 1898 onwards)
Hiller von Graetringen, F., Inscriptiones Graecae I. Editio Minor (Berlin, 1924)
Kenyon, F.G., The Palaeography of Greek Papyri. (Oxford, 1899)
Kenyon, F.G., “Abbreviations and Symbols in Greek Papyri” in Oikonomides, A. N. (ed.),Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions: Papyri, Manuscripts and Early Printed Books (Chicago,1974)
Mai, A. & Cozza-Luzi, J., Novae Patrum Biblithecae, vol. 10/1 (Rome, 1905) 265
McNamee, K., Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri. (Papyrologica Bruxellensia
26) (Brussels, 1992)
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Beta Code Manual (University of California, Irvine, 2002)
Turner, E.G. with Parsons, P.J., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World 2nd ed. (London, 1987)

Examples
TWO DOT PUNCTUATION

Inscription from 446/445 BC, Attica2
FOUR DOT PUNCTUATIONTheodosius Dyrrhachiensis, Opus alphabeticum de eutaxia3
DOTTED CROSSDoctrina Patrum, page 297 line 54

2Hiller von Graetringen, F., Inscriptiones Graecae I. Editio Minor (Berlin, 1924) 13Mai, A. & Cozza-Luzi, J., Novae Patrum Biblithecae, vol. 10/1 (Rome, 1905) 265

4Diekamp, Franz, Doctrina patrum de incarnatione verbi (Münster, 1907)

SUPPLEMENTAL PUNCTUATION
2E0D
TWO DOT PUNCTUATION
2E0E
FOUR DOT PUNCTUATION
2E0F
DOTTED CROSS