A last missing link for interoperable representation

[wjgo_10009@btinternet.com via Unicode]

James Kass wrote:

> For the V.S. option there should be a provision for consistency and 
> open-endedness to keep it simple.  Start with VS14 and work backwards 
> for italic, …

I have now made, tested and published a font, VS14 Maquette, that uses 
VS14 to indicate italic.

https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7831&p=37561#p37561

William Overington
Saturday 12 January 2019



------ Original Message ------
From: "James Kass via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org>
To: unicode at unicode.org
Sent: Friday, 2019 Jan 11 At 01:48
Subject: Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation


Richard Wordingham responded,

>> ... simply using an existing variation
>> selector character to do the job.
>
> Actually, this might be a superior option.

For the V.S. option there should be a provision for consistency and 
open-endedness to keep it simple.  Start with VS14 and work backwards 
for italic, fraktur, antiqua...  (whatever the preferred order works out 
to be).  Or (better yet) start at VS17 and move forward (and change the 
rule that seventeen and up is only for CJK).

Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously 
considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?