Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

gfb hjjhjh wrote: > According to the wikipedia page for the Desert alphabet, there're > critism that in the unicode chart some of the letter encoded for the > alphabet used the 1855 design instead of 1859 deisgn of those > characters. Would it be a good idea to make ​standardized variation >

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:50 PM James Kass wrote: > If the user community needs to preserve the distinction in plain-text, > then variation selection is the right approach. > True. However, the user community is tiny, and I suspect that those variation selectors would

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet An interesting article. The "Encodings" section illustrates the differences between the older and newer forms of the two letters. Doug Ewell wrote, > A Deseret font could easily, and conformantly, be > constructed with whatever set of glyphs the

Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

According to the wikipedia page for the Desert alphabet, there're critism that in the unicode chart some of the letter encoded for the alphabet used the 1855 design instead of 1859 deisgn of those characters. Would it be a good idea to make ​standardized variation sequences for those characters so