Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Mark On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Michael Everson wrote: > On 6 Apr 2017, at 16:05, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: > > >> I just get frustrated when everyone including the veterans seems to > forget every bit of precedent that we have for the useful encoding

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 6 Apr 2017, at 16:05, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: >> I just get frustrated when everyone including the veterans seems to forget >> every bit of precedent that we have for the useful encoding of characters. > > ​Nobody's forgetting anything. ​Simply because people disagree with

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Michael Everson wrote: > I just get frustrated when everyone including the veterans seems to forget > every bit of precedent that we have for the useful encoding of characters. > ​Nobody's forgetting anything. ​Simply because people disagree

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 6 Apr 2017, at 08:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > Hello Michael, Hi Martin. >> It’s as though you’d not participated in this work for many years, really. > > Well, looking back, my time commitment to Unicode has definitely varied over > the years. But that might be

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:07 AM Martin J. Dürst wrote: > And while we currently have no evidence that Deseret had developed a > typographic tradition where some type styles would use one set of > ligatures, and other styles would use another set, it wouldn't be > possible

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Hello Michael, [I started to write this mail quite some time ago. I decided to try to let things cool down a bit by waiting a day or two, but it has become more than a week now.] On 2017/03/29 22:08, Michael Everson wrote: Martin, It’s as though you’d not participated in this work for many

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > Let me start with a short summary of where I think we are at, and how we got > there. > > - The discussion started out with two letters, > with two letter forms each. There is explicit talk of the > 40-letter

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Martin, thanks for the careful summary. As in all these cases it is possible to argue from different premises, so I would, unfortunately, not expect that this discussion will reach the consensus of all parties. In the end, Unicode is made for the modern user, whether they are native users

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Martin, It’s as though you’d not participated in this work for many years, really. > On 29 Mar 2017, at 11:12, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > Let me start with a short summary of where I think we are at, and how we got > there. > > - The discussion

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Hello everybody, Let me start with a short summary of where I think we are at, and how we got there. - The discussion started out with two letters, with two letter forms each. There is explicit talk of the 40-letter alphabet and glyphs in the Wikipedia page, not of two different

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/29 01:47, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2017-03-28 18:30 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag : On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. We need a pretzel emoji. We need a broken tooth emoji too !

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/28/2017 10:30 AM, Peter Edberg wrote: On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Asmus Freytag > wrote: On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. We need a pretzel emoji.

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: >> An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. > We need a pretzel emoji. Already in Unicode 10 / emoji 5.0:

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-28 18:30 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag : > On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: > >> An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. >> > We need a pretzel emoji. We need a broken tooth emoji too !

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. We need a pretzel emoji. A./

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 28 Mar 2017, at 11:39, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> And what would the value of this be? Why should I (who have been doing this >> for two decades) not be able to use the word “character” when I believe it >> correct? Sometimes you people who have been here for a long

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 28 Mar 2017, at 07:32, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > On 2017/03/28 01:03, Michael Everson wrote: >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:56, John H. Jenkins wrote: > >> The 1857 St Louis punches definitely included both the 1855 EW Ч and the >> 1859 OI <ЃІ>. Ken

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/27 21:59, Michael Everson wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at 08:05, Martin J. Dürst wrote: Consider 2EBC ⺼ CJK RADICAL MEAT and 2E9D ⺝ CJK RADICAL MOON which are apparently really supposed to have identical glyphs, though we use an old-fashioned style in the charts

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/28 01:20, Michael Everson wrote: Ken transcribes into modern type a letter by Shelton dated 1859, in which “boy” is written В<ЃІ>, “few” as Й<ІЋ>, “truefully” [sic] as ГС<ІЋ>ЙЋТІ, and “you” as Џ<ІЋ>. These are all 1859 variants, yes? That would just show that these variants

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/28 01:49, Michael Everson wrote: Sorry, but typographic control of that sort is grand for typesetting, where you can select ranges of text and language-tag it (assuming your program accepts and supports all the language tags you might need (which they don’t)) and you can select

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

I agree with Alstair. The list of font technology options was mostly to show that there are already a lot of options (some might even say too many), so font technology doesn't really limit our choices. Regards, Martin. On 2017/03/27 23:04, Alastair Houghton wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: ​​ No, your work wouldn't be impossible. It might be quite a bit more > difficult, but not impossible. I have written papers about Han ideographs > and Japanese text processing where I had to create my own

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Hello Michael, others, On 2017/03/27 21:07, Michael Everson wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at 06:42, Martin J. Dürst wrote: The characters in question have different and undisputed origins, undisputed. If you change that to the somewhat more neutral "the shapes in question

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/28 01:03, Michael Everson wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:56, John H. Jenkins wrote: The 1857 St Louis punches definitely included both the 1855 EW Ч and the 1859 OI <ЃІ>. Ken Beesley shows them in smoke proofs in his 2004 paper on Metafont. Good to have some

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

I’ll look into whatever you’re on about the other ‘minor’ script, but with regard to what you’ve said below, I’m fairly sure I encoded the missing characters there. I believe it was A7AE and A7B0, capital letters turned K and T used in that orthography. There is a problem with turned P and p in

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:34 AM Martin J. Dürst wrote: > The qualification 'minor' is less important for an alphabet. In general, > the more established and well-known an alphabet is, the wider the > variations of glyph shapes that may be tolerated. > My problem with

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Alastair Houghton wrote: > 1. Unicode has to be usable *today*; it’s no good designing for some kind of > hyper-intelligent AI-based font technology a thousand years hence, because we > don’t have that now. If it isn’t usable today for

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 17:07, John H. Jenkins wrote: > This should teach me to double-check before posting. The research is a lot of fun. Can’t wait till I get Ken’s book next week. > Apparently, the earlier typeface *did* include all forty letters; it just > didn't use these

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 9:56 AM, John H. Jenkins wrote: > > >> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:04 AM, James Kass > > wrote: >> >>> >>> If we have any historic metal types, are there >>> examples where a font contains both

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:56, John H. Jenkins wrote: >> John H. Jenkins mentioned early in this thread that these ligatures weren't >> used in printed materials and were not part of the official Deseret set. >> They were only used in manuscript. > > This is correct. Neither of

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:04 AM, James Kass wrote: > >> >> If we have any historic metal types, are there >> examples where a font contains both ligature >> variants? > > Apparently not. > > John H. Jenkins mentioned early in this thread that these ligatures > weren't

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 14:49, Michael Everson wrote: >> 3) Font features (e.g. 1855 vs. 1859) to select shapes in the same font > > Font trickery. Not portable. Not supported by most apps. I wouldn’t describe it as “trickery” or “not portable”. Features like stylistic

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 10:14, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > I contend, therefore, that no decision about Unicode should take into > account any ephemeral considerations such as this year's electronic > font technology, and that therefore it's not even useful to mention >

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 09:29, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> He is. He transcribes texts into Deseret. I’ve published three of them >> (Alice, Looking-Glass, and Snark). > > Great to know. Given that, I'd assume that you'd take his input a bit more > serious. I’m discussing it

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 09:04, James Kass wrote: > John H. Jenkins mentioned early in this thread that these ligatures weren't > used in printed materials and were not part of the official Deseret set. > They were only used in manuscript. Not quite true. Such detail will

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 08:05, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> Consider 2EBC ⺼ CJK RADICAL MEAT and 2E9D ⺝ CJK RADICAL MOON which are >> apparently really supposed to have identical glyphs, though we use an >> old-fashioned style in the charts for the former. (Yes, I am of course

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 06:42, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> The default position is NOT “everything is encoded unified until disunified”. > > Neither it's "everything is encoded separately unless it's unified”. These Deseret letters aren’t encoded. For my part I wasn’t made

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 27 Mar 2017, at 05:58, James Kass wrote: > > Asmus Freytag wrote, > >> In the current case, you have the opposite, to wit, the text elements are >> unchanged, but you would like to add alternate code elements >> to represent what are, ultimately, the same text

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

While I hesitate to dive in to this argument, Martin makes one comment where I think a point of principle arises: On 2017-03-27, =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?= wrote: [Michael wrote] >> You know, Martin, I *have* been doing this for the last two decades. I’m >> well

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/24 23:37, Michael Everson wrote: On 24 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Martin J. Dürst wrote: On 2017/03/23 22:48, Michael Everson wrote: Indeed I would say to John Jenkins and Ken Beesley that the richness of the history of the Deseret alphabet would be impoverished

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

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

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Martin J. Dürst responded to Michael Everson, > Overall, we may have up to four variants, of which > three are currently explicitly supported in Unicode. Yes. > Are all of these used as spelling variants? Is there another possible use? > Is the choice of variant up to the author (for which >

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/27 01:20, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag wrote: Consider 2EBC ⺼ CJK RADICAL MEAT and 2E9D ⺝ CJK RADICAL MOON which are apparently really supposed to have identical glyphs, though we use an old-fashioned style in the charts

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/26 22:15, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 09:12, Martin J. Dürst wrote: Thats a good point: any disunification requires showing examples of contrasting uses. Fully agreed. The default position is NOT “everything is encoded unified until

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Asmus Freytag wrote, > In the current case, you have the opposite, > to wit, the text elements are unchanged, but > you would like to add alternate code elements > to represent what are, ultimately, the same > text elements. That's not disunification, but > dual encoding. If spelling a word with

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 9:23 AM, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 17:02, Asmus Freytag wrote: On 3/26/2017 6:18 AM, Michael Everson wrote: In any case it’s not a disunification. Some characters are encoded; they were used to write diphthongs in 1855. These characters

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 1:51 PM, Michael Everson wrote: Finally, if this was in major, modern use, adding these code points would have grave consequences for security. Why? They’re not visually similar to the existing characters. So spoofing wouldn’t be

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 9:20 AM, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag wrote: The priority in encoding has to be with allowing distinctions in modern texts, or distinctions that matter to modern users of historic writing systems. Beyond that, theoretical

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 21:48, Richard Wordingham wrote: >> 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

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 21:39, Asmus Freytag wrote: >> 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? > > If there was a tradition of writing W like omega, then switching the chart

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 18:33:00 +0100 Michael Everson wrote: > On 26 Mar 2017, at 18:20, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Michael Everson wrote: > >> One practical consequence of changing the chart glyphs now, for > >> instance, would be that it would invalidate

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 10:33 AM, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 18:20, Doug Ewell 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

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 18:20, Doug Ewell 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

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

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. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

Philippe Verdy wrote: Or may be, only for historic texts, we could add a combining lowercase e as an alternative to the existing diaeresis. Something like U+0364 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E, maybe? -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 17:02, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > On 3/26/2017 6:18 AM, Michael Everson wrote: > >> In any case it’s not a disunification. Some characters are encoded; they >> were used to write diphthongs in 1855. These characters were abandoned by >> 1859, and other

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:59, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > On 3/26/2017 8:47 AM, Michael Everson wrote: >>> On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag wrote: >>> >>> The latter is patent nonsense, because ä and aͤ are even less related to >>> each other

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > The priority in encoding has to be with allowing distinctions in modern > texts, or distinctions that matter to modern users of historic writing > systems. Beyond that, theoretical analysis of typographical evolution can

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 6:18 AM, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 10:07, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote: I tend to agree with Martin, Philippe and others in questioning the disunification. You may, but you give no evidence or discussion about it, so... In any case it’s not a

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 8:47 AM, Michael Everson wrote: On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag wrote: The latter is patent nonsense, because ä and aͤ are even less related to each other than "i" and "j"; never mind the fact that their forms are both based on the letter "a".

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > The latter is patent nonsense, because ä and aͤ are even less related to each > other than "i" and "j"; never mind the fact that their forms are both based > on the letter "a". Encoding and font choice should be seen

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/25/2017 3:15 PM, David Starner wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM Michael Everson wrote: And we *can* distinguish i and j in that Latin text, because

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 14:32, David Starner wrote: >>> And I'd argue that a good theoretical model of the Latin script makes ä, ꞛ >>> and aͤ the same character, distinguished only by the font. >> >> Fortunately for the users of our standard, we don’t do this. > > You've yet

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:12 AM Michael Everson wrote: > On 25 Mar 2017, at 22:15, David Starner wrote: > > > > And I'd argue that a good theoretical model of the Latin script makes ä, > ꞛ and aͤ the same character, distinguished only by the font. > >

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 26 Mar 2017, at 10:07, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote: > > I tend to agree with Martin, Philippe and others in questioning the > disunification. You may, but you give no evidence or discussion about it, so... In any case it’s not a disunification. Some characters are encoded; they

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On 26 Mar 2017, at 09:12, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> Thats a good point: any disunification requires showing examples of >> contrasting uses. > > Fully agreed. The default position is NOT “everything is encoded unified until disunified”. The characters in question

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 25 Mar 2017, at 22:15, David Starner wrote: > > And I'd argue that a good theoretical model of the Latin script makes ä, ꞛ > and aͤ the same character, distinguished only by the font. Fortunately for the users of our standard, we don’t do this. > This is complicated

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

On 2017/03/25 03:33, Doug Ewell wrote: Philippe Verdy wrote: But Unicode just prefered to keep the roundtrip compatiblity with earlier 8-bit encodings (including existing ISO 8859 and DIN standards) so that "ü" in German and French also have the same canonical decomposition even if the

VS: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

...@wanadoo.fr; David Starner Kopio: Michael Everson; unicode Unicode Discussion Aihe: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet? On 2017/03/26 11:24, Philippe Verdy wrote: > Thats a good point: any disunification requires showing examples of > contrasting uses. Fully agreed. We h

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> Well, in most cases, but not e.g. for names. Goethe is not spelled > Göthe. Have a look into `Grimmsches Wörterbuch' to see the opposite :-) Werner

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/26 11:24, Philippe Verdy wrote: Thats a good point: any disunification requires showing examples of contrasting uses. Fully agreed. We haven't yet heard of any contrasting uses for the letter shapes we are discussing. Now depending on individual publications, authors would use

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-25 23:15 GMT+01:00 David Starner : > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM Michael Everson > wrote: > >> And we *can* distinguish i and j in that Latin text, because we have >> separate characters encoded for it. And we *have* encoded many other

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM Michael Everson wrote: > And we *can* distinguish i and j in that Latin text, because we have > separate characters encoded for it. And we *have* encoded many other Latin > ligature-based letters and sigla of various kinds for the

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

Given the history of characters and the initial desire to be forward compatible with previous ISO standards, I am convinced that there was no other choice than preserving the unification, otherwise it would have been impossible to reliably remap the zillions documents and databases or applications

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

> On 24 Mar 2017, at 19:33, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Philippe Verdy wrote: > >> But Unicode just prefered to keep the roundtrip compatiblity with >> earlier 8-bit encodings (including existing ISO 8859 and DIN >> standards) so that "ü" in German and French also have the same >>

Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

Philippe Verdy wrote: > But Unicode just prefered to keep the roundtrip compatiblity with > earlier 8-bit encodings (including existing ISO 8859 and DIN > standards) so that "ü" in German and French also have the same > canonical decomposition even if the diacritic is a diaeresis in French > and

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-24 17:11 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson : > On 23 Mar 2017, at 22:03, David Starner wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:54 AM Michael Everson > wrote: > >> Again: The source of 1855 EW and OI uses *different* letters than the

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 23 Mar 2017, at 22:03, David Starner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:54 AM Michael Everson wrote: >> Again: The source of 1855 EW and OI uses *different* letters than the 1859 >> EW and OI do. This wasn’t accidental. It’s not hard to puzzle out

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 24 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > On 2017/03/23 22:48, Michael Everson wrote: > >> Indeed I would say to John Jenkins and Ken Beesley that the richness of the >> history of the Deseret alphabet would be impoverished by treating the 1859 >> letters as

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/23 22:48, Michael Everson wrote: Indeed I would say to John Jenkins and Ken Beesley that the richness of the history of the Deseret alphabet would be impoverished by treating the 1859 letters as identical to the 1855 letters. Well, I might be completely wrong, but John Jenkins

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:54 AM Michael Everson wrote: > Again: The source of 1855 EW and OI uses *different* letters than the 1859 > EW and OI do. This wasn’t accidental. It’s not hard to puzzle out or to > see. This isn’t random or even systematic natural development of >

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 23 Mar 2017, at 06:28, David Starner wrote: > > Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written has > > a different origin than the normal R? > > But it doesn’t. It’s the Latin letter R turned backwards by a designer for a > logo. We wouldn’t

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:09 PM Michael Everson wrote: > On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner wrote: > > > > Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written > has a different origin than the normal R? > > But it doesn’t. It’s

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner wrote: > > Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written has a > different origin than the normal R? But it doesn’t. It’s the Latin letter R turned backwards by a designer for a logo. We wouldn’t encode

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:54 AM Michael Everson wrote: > If there is evidence outside of the Wikipedia for the 1859 letters, they > should be encoded as new letters, because their design shows them to be > ligatures of different base characters. That means they’re not glyph

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 22 Mar 2017, at 20:26, James Kass wrote: > Michael Everson wrote, > >> The old EW and OI and the new EW and OI are clearly *different* letters. > > "Different" versus "variant”? Yes, different. All of them share the SHORT I [ɪ] stroke but the base characters are Ѕ Љ

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Michael Everson wrote, > The old EW and OI and the new EW and OI are > clearly *different* letters. "Different" versus "variant"? Michael's analysis seems correct. If Deseret was not already in the Standard, a new proposal for its encoding including eight characters covering the two dipthongs

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 22 Mar 2017, at 16:50, John H. Jenkins wrote: > > My own take on this is "absolutely not." This is a font issue, pure and > simple. There is no dispute as to the identity of the characters in question, > just their appearance. There’s identity in terms of intended usage

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

My own take on this is "absolutely not." This is a font issue, pure and simple. There is no dispute as to the identity of the characters in question, just their appearance. In any event, these two letters were never part of the "standard" Deseret Alphabet used in printed materials. To the

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

>> 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 never get used. I do not use Deseret myself. I opine that encoding the

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

The right first thing to do is to examine the letterforms and determine on structural grounds whether there is a case to be made for encoding. Beesley claimed in 2002 that the glyphs used for EW [ju] and OI [ɔɪ] changed between 1855 and 1859. Well, OK. 1. The 1855 glyph for Ч EW is evidently

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

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 >

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