If this is for German dialectology, then the alphabet needed is too much incomplete to be usable without usingas well generic letters with additional out-of-band styling.
We are reaching the point where disunification of the Fraktur script from the Latin script could occur (just like it occured for Coptic from Greek, or between 2 of the Georgian alphabets), and promote the ISO 15924 "Latf" script as a new distinct UCS scrip. In that case, all the existing Fraktur/BlackLetter letters (currently in Latin or Maths blocks) could be assigned a new script, and all other missing letters for usage of Fraktur in Germanic languages (and possibly in other European medieval texts, at a time where there were much less diacritics but many more ligatures and abbreviation symbols) could be added in a new separate block in a supplementary plane. (I don't see the interest of keeping also the existing Maths symbols separate from the new script, as maths Fraktur symbols are in fact a very basic and small subset which can fit perfectly in the core Fraktur alphabet. But we could leave holes reserved in the new block to simplify font development with duplicate mappings even if standard interchanges witll use only the existing code points), or fill these holes with canonical singleton equivalences (this will not require any change to the existing collation tailorings, except for the new codepoints added for missing letters or ligatures or abbreviation symbols). This would simplify the maitenance of many Latin fonts for modern usages (even if there will remain fonts giving a Fraktur style to the normal script, but with artificial inventions to set the modern diacritics and hinted contextual optional ligatures), even of the Fraktur script is still considered as a modern script used for the period extending up to the end of WW2 in Central Europe (plus France, northern Italy, and every place under German occupation or political influence; it seems that at the same period, the script was also popular in the Germanic communities in US and South America, even if they spoke or wrote other languages). 2013/9/10 Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]> > 2013-09-10 20:36, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > > 2013-09-10 20:01, Asmus Freytag wrote: >> >> This rationale is absent in document WG2 N3907 that requests these >>> characters. >>> >> >> If this is document >> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/SC2/**wg2/docs/n3907.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/SC2/wg2/docs/n3907.pdf> >> then I’m rather confused: it proposes AB51 for LATIN SMALL LETTER >> BLACKLETTER O and does not include LATIN SMALL LETTER BLACKLETTER E at >> all. And as far as I can see, the proposal has not been accepted. >> > > The document “ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4106, Report on the ad hoc re > “Teuthonista” (SC2/WG2 N4081) held during the SC2/WG2 > meeting at Helsinki, 2011 June 7/8”, > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/**wg2/docs/n4106.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4106.pdf> > which is linked to from > http://www.unicode.org/**roadmaps/bmp/<http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp/> > contains AB32 and AB3D as described in Jean-François Colson’s question. > > It does not contain any specific motivation for them; it just lists them > under “Letters for German dialectology”. > > As far as I can see, the document summarizes an agreement in an ad hoc > meeting. So it’s not late at all to raise objections, is it? > > Yucca > > > >
