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 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 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 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?

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: 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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?

> 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

VS: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

I tend to agree with Martin, Philippe and others in questioning the disunification. Sincerely, Erkki I. Kolehmainen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] Puolesta Martin J. Dürst Lähetetty: 26. maaliskuuta 2017 11:12 Vastaanottaja:

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: 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 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: 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

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 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 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 3/26/2017 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 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?

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 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