Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?
jameskasskrv at gmail.com
Mon Mar 27 03:23:39 CDT 2017
Martin J. Dürst responded to Michael Everson,
> Unfortunately, much of what you wrote gave me the
> impression that you may think that historical origin
> is the only criterion, or a criterion that trumps all
> others. If you don't think so, it would be good if you
> could confirm this. If you think so, it would be good
> to know why.
Historical origin is always a good starting point.
The importance of history cannot be overstated. Without it, the other
criteria would not exist.
Historical origin wouldn't override evidence of contrasting use in
this case because such evidence would be "icing on the cake".
> ... I have mentioned "usability for average users in
> average contexts" and "contrasting use" as criteria,
> and I have also in earlier mail acknowledged history
> as a (not the) criterion, and have mentioned legacy/
> roundtrip issues. I'm sure there are others.
Adding a few historic letters should seldom have any effect on
"usability for average users in average contexts". Whether it does in
this case remains to be seen.
Legacy and roundtrip issues are important because
backwards-compatibility supports history. Concerns in this case
appear to be hypothetical.
More information about the Unicode