Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

[Richard Wordingham]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 18:33:00 +0100
Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:

> On 26 Mar 2017, at 18:20, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> > Michael Everson wrote:

> >> One practical consequence of changing the chart glyphs now, for
> >> instance, would be that it would invalidate every existing Deseret
> >> font. Adding new characters would not.  

> > I thought the chart glyphs were not normative.  

> Come on, Doug. The letter W is a ligature of V and V. But sure, the
> glyphs are only informative, so why don’t we use an OO ligature
> instead?

A script-stlye font might legitimately use a glyph that looks like a
small omega for U+0077 LATIN SMALL LETTER W.  Small omega, of course,
is an οο ligature.  More to the point, a font may legitimately use the
same glyphs for U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G and U+0261 LATIN SMALL
LETTER SCRIPT G.

A more serious issue is the multiple forms of U+014A LATIN CAPITAL
LETTER ENG, for which the underlying unity comes from their being the
capital form of U+014B LATIN SMALL LETTER ENG.

Are there not serious divergences with the shapes of the Syriac letters?

Richard.