Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-24 Thread Martin J. Dürst
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 Deseret alphabet?

2017-03-24 Thread Martin J. Dürst
On 2017/03/23 22:32, Michael Everson wrote: What is right for Deseret has to be decided by and for Deseret users, rather than by script historians. Odd. That view doesn’t seem to be applicable to CJK unification. Well, it may not seem to you, but actually it is. I have had a lot of

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-24 Thread Philippe Verdy
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?

2017-03-24 Thread 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 1859 >> EW and OI do. This wasn’t accidental. It’s not hard to puzzle out

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

2017-03-24 Thread Doug Ewell
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: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

2017-03-24 Thread Hans Åberg
> 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 >>

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

2017-03-24 Thread Philippe Verdy
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: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-24 Thread Michael Everson
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