Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Transliteration questions

Howdy! I have been on a bit of a transliteration binge recently, and I had a few questions I thought you might be able to answer (In part because you worked on this some).

I was looking at Module:uga-translit and wondering: In the same vein of deciding on specific tranliterations, I wrote module:Ital-translit based on Appendix:Old Italic script and was wondering: Sorry for all the questions, but I thought you might have useful answers/opinions.
 * 1) Do we have a decision about the correct transliteration of 𐎀 (ʾa/ả), 𐎃 (ẖ/ḫ), 𐎛 (ʾi/ỉ/i), 𐎜 (ʾu/ủ), 𐎝 (s₂/ś)?
 * 2) Why was this never fully implemented?
 * 1) Do I need a vote to decide on particular encoding/transliteration principles for certain languages? For instance, the South Picene lemma mefiín (which I want to move to Ital) could be lemmatized:
 * 2)  with ⁚ and 𐌑 (which looks like the form used in South Picene)
 * 3)  with a colon
 * 4)  with 𐌝 (the Unicode character encoded for í, but that doesn't look like the form in South Picene)
 * 5) What do I need to change to get both ⁚ & : to be transliterated as f?
 * 6) Ital-translit currently has a standard behavior for all Ital characters and then exceptions by language. This means that if character, which is not in a particular language's sub-alphabet. is added, it will be transliterated regardless using the standard correspondence. Should I disallow this behavior and only permit transliteration of characters within a language's sub-alphabet?
 * 1) Ital-translit currently has a standard behavior for all Ital characters and then exceptions by language. This means that if character, which is not in a particular language's sub-alphabet. is added, it will be transliterated regardless using the standard correspondence. Should I disallow this behavior and only permit transliteration of characters within a language's sub-alphabet?