On 26 Mar 2017, at 21:48, Richard Wordingham <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> 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 looks like a small > omega for U+0077 LATIN SMALL LETTER W. As I said to Asmus, my analogy was about ligatures made from underlying letters. Yours doesn’t apply because it’s just talking about glyph shapes. > Small omega, of course, is an οο ligature. True. :-) Isn’t history wonderful? > More to the point, a font may legitimately use the same glyphs for U+0067 > LATIN SMALL LETTER G and U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G. A good font will still find a way to distinguish them. :-) > A more serious issue is the multiple forms of U+014A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER > ENG, for which the underlying unity comes from their being the capital form > of U+014B LATIN SMALL LETTER ENG. We could have, and should have, solved this problem *long ago* by encoding LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN ENG and LATIN SMALL LETTER AFRICAN ENG. > Are there not serious divergences with the shapes of the Syriac letters? That is analogous to Roman/Gaelic/Fraktur. That analogy doesn’t apply to these Deseret characters; it’s not a whole-script gestalt. Michael Everson
