Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

[David Starner]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:09 PM Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written
> has a different origin than the normal R?
>
> But it doesn’t. It’s the Latin letter R turned backwards by a designer for
> a logo. We wouldn’t encode that, because it’s a logo.
>

What logo? I honestly don't know what logo you're talking about, but a
quick Google search confirms it's used outside of a logo. I was thinking of
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Russia/img/cover_lg.jpg which actually
doesn't use the reversed R, but uses other Cyrillic characters.


> We don’t encode diphthongs. We encode the elements of writing systems. The
> “idea” here is represented by one ligature of �� + �� (1855 EW), one
> ligature of �� + �� (1859 EW), one ligature of �� + �� (1855 OI), and one
> ligature of �� + �� (1859 OI).
>

If they're ligatures, they should be encoded as ligatures; if they're
indivisible characters, then their glyph forms are of less interest.


> Those ligatures are not glyph variants of one another. You might as well
> say that Æ and Œ are glyph variants of one another.
>

Æ and Œ have contrasting use; they're used in the same text in distinct
ways. Note that n and v̆ are considered glyph variants of each other,
because v̆ is used in Sutterlin in exactly the places that n is used in
typewritten versions of the text.


> Æ is not Œ.
>

æ is not œ even when they are printed in fonts that make it nearly
impossible to tell them apart. It has nothing to do with the glyphs or how
those glyphs were created, it's because they're used in different ways.

The example of Sutterlin strikes me as quite relevant here; characters get
all sorts of weird shapes in handwriting. Sometimes they end up
immortalized in printing, and then they usually get encoded. Usually not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170323/1f896e63/attachment.html>