On 5/28/26 2:35 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:
Sure but Teyvat Script is, as you seem to have said, is 1 to 1 with latin. So it has no need to be encoded in the first place. These other scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) don't have that.
Being easily transliterated does not necessarily mean a script has no identity or need to be encoded. There was the huge fuss years ago about the 22-letter Phonecian abjad and whether we should encode Aramaic and Palmyrene and Samaritan and who knows what else, or if everyone should just make do with (square) Hebrew. Scripts are different when they're different; the fact that one maps to another doesn't make them the same script. (Otherwise, I'll argue to deprecate just about all of Unicode, except for CJK, since after all, we can always make do with font tricks and alternate font pages. Oh wait, we did just that with ISO-8859).
Not to say that *every* alternate alphabet needs its own encoding. There are such things as fonts and typefaces and all; we don't need Fraktur to have its own encoding (yeah, yeah, Mathematical letters grumble...) But a simple map does not make alphabets identical.
~mark
