Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Martin J. Dürst duerst at
Tue Mar 28 01:32:03 CDT 2017

On 2017/03/28 01:03, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:56, John H. Jenkins <jenkins at> wrote:

> The 1857 St Louis punches definitely included both the 1855 EW �� and the 1859 OI <����>. Ken Beesley shows them in smoke proofs in his 2004 paper on Metafont.

Good to have some actual examples. However, the example at hand does, as 
far as I understand it, not necessarily support separate encoding.

While it mixes 1855 and 1859, it contains only one of the ligature 
variants each. Indeed, it could be taken as support for the theory that 
the top and bottom row ligatures in 
were used interchangeably, and that the 1857 St Louis punches just made 
one particular choice of glyph selection.

What would give a strong argument would be the *concurrent* existence of 
*corresponding* ligatures in the same font, or the concurrent (even 
better, contrasting) use of corresponding ligatures in the same text.

Regards,   Martin.

What's interesting (weird?) is that the "1859" OI <����> appears in 1857 
punches. Time travel? Or is the label "1859" a misnomer or just a 

More information about the Unicode mailing list