Standaridized variation sequences for the Deseret alphabet?

[Martin J. Dürst]

On 2017/03/23 22:32, Michael Everson wrote:

>> What is right for Deseret has to be decided by and for Deseret users, rather than by script historians.
>
> Odd. That view doesn’t seem to be applicable to CJK unification.

Well, it may not seem to you, but actually it is. I have had a lot of 
discussions with Japanese and others about Han unification (mostly in 
the '90ies), and have studied the history and principles of Han 
unification in quite some detail.

To summarize it, Han unification unifies very much exactly those cases 
where an average user, in average texts, would consider two forms "the 
same" (i.e. exchangeable). Exceptions are due to the round trip rule. It 
also separates very much exactly those cases where an average user, for 
average texts, may not consider two forms equivalent.

If necessary, I can go into further details, but I would have to dig 
quite deeply for some of the sources.

Regards,   Martin.