On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:54 AM Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote:
> If there is evidence outside of the Wikipedia for the 1859 letters, they > should be encoded as new letters, because their design shows them to be > ligatures of different base characters. That means they’re not glyph > variants of the currently encoded letters. > Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written has a different origin than the normal R? There's huge variation in Latin script including all sorts of different glyphs, and I suspect Яussia is way more common than any use of the Deseret script. There's the same characters here, written in different ways. The glyphs may come from a different origin, but it's encoding the same idea. If a user community considers them separate, then they should be separated, but I don't see that happening, and from an idealistic perspective, I think they're platonically the same.
