Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Michael Everson everson at
Wed Mar 22 12:44:04 CDT 2017

On 22 Mar 2017, at 16:50, John H. Jenkins <jenkins at> wrote:
> My own take on this is "absolutely not." This is a font issue, pure and simple. There is no dispute as to the identity of the characters in question, just their appearance. 

There’s identity in terms of intended usage (two diphthongs), and identity in terms of the origin of the characters (ligatures from different sources). That kind of etymology is indeed something that we take into account when encoding characters.

> In any event, these two letters were never part of the "standard" Deseret Alphabet used in printed materials. To the extent they were used, it was in hand-written material only, where you're going to see a fair amount of variation anyway.

I think I have to stand by my glyph analysis

> There were also two recensions of the DA used in printed materials which are materially different, and those would best be handled via fonts.

Dunno what you are referring to here. 

> It isn't unreasonable to suggest we change the glyphs we use in the Standard. Ken Beesley and I have have discussed the possibility, and we both feel that it's very much on the table.

I would oppose such a change given the origin of the four characters we have discussed. The old EW and OI and the new EW and OI are clearly *different* letters.


More information about the Unicode mailing list