> On 12 Feb 2020, at 23:30, Michel Suignard via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> > wrote: > > These abstract collections have started to appear in the first part of the > nineteen century (Champollion starting in 1822). Interestingly these > collections have started to be useful on their own even if in some case the > main use of parts is self-referencing, either because the glyph is a known > mistake, or a ghost (character for which attestation is now firmly disputed). > For example, it would be very difficult to create a new set not including the > full Gardiner set, even if some of the characters are not necessarily > justified. To a large degree, Hieroglyphica (and its related collection > JSesh) has obtained that status as well. The IFAO (Institut Français > d’Archéologie Orientatle) set is another one, although there is no modern > font representing all of it (although many of the IFAO glyphs should not be > encoded separately). > > There is obviously no doubt that the character in question <image003.png>is a > modern invention and not based on historical evidence. But interestingly > enough it has started to be used as a pictogram with some content value, > describing in fact an Egyptologist. It may not belong to that block, but it > actually describes an use case and has been used a symbol in some technical > publication.
>From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use >or have had use, it should be included somehow.
