Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

[Philippe Verdy]

2017-03-25 23:15 GMT+01:00 David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And we *can* distinguish i and j in that Latin text, because we have
>> separate characters encoded for it. And we *have* encoded many other Latin
>> ligature-based letters and sigla of various kinds for the representation of
>> medieval European texts. Indeed, that’s just a stronger argument for
>> distinguishing the ligature-based letters for Deseret, I think.
>>
>
> And I'd argue that a good theoretical model of the Latin script makes ä, ꞛ
> and aͤ the same character, distinguished only by the font. This is
> complicated by combining characters mostly identified by glyph, and the
> fact that while ä and aͤ may be the same character across time, there are
> people wanting to distinguish them in the same text today, and in both
> cases the theoretical falls to the practical. In this case, there are no
> combining character issues and there's nobody needing to use the two forms
> in the same text.
>

Thats a good point: any disunification requires showing examples of
contrasting uses. Now depending on individual publications, authors would
use one character or the other according to their choice, and the encoding
will respect it. If we need further unification for matching texts in the
samer language across periods of time or authors, collation (UCA) can
provide help: this is already what it does in modern German with the digram
"ae" and the letter "ä" which are orthographic variants not distinguished
by the language but by authors' preference.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170326/82ef544b/attachment.html>