You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set of separate scripts
What?
where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.
We haven't decided what kind of unification is appropriate for Tifinagh entities yet.
Byt itself, ignoring all other transliteration to Latin and Arabic, "the" Tifinagh scripts are already cyphers of another variant of Tifinagh script.
I think this is rather muddled.
If characters are encoded by their names (as they should in Unicode)
What?
then we are unable to produce an accurate chart showing "representative glyphs", as no variant of the script covers the whole abstract character set,
and so this would require several charts, i.e. multiple glyphs for the same
abstract character.
I made a chart. It was a start.
In this condition, why couldn't Latin glyphs be among these, when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract character set covered by all scripts in the Tifinagh family?
Gosh. Because Latin is a different script. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
