Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

David Starner prosfilaes at
Wed Mar 22 16:39:27 CDT 2017

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:54 AM Michael Everson <everson at>

> If there is evidence outside of the Wikipedia for the 1859 letters, they
> should be encoded as new letters, because their design shows them to be
> ligatures of different base characters. That means they’re not glyph
> variants of the currently encoded letters.

Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written has
a different origin than the normal R? There's huge variation in Latin
script including all sorts of different glyphs, and I suspect Яussia is way
more common than any use of the Deseret script.

There's the same characters here, written in different ways. The glyphs may
come from a different origin, but it's encoding the same idea. If a user
community considers them separate, then they should be separated, but I
don't see that happening, and from an idealistic perspective, I think
they're platonically the same.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list