Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/26/2017 9:20 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:45, Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The priority in encoding has to be with allowing distinctions in modern texts, or distinctions that matter to modern users of historic writing systems. Beyond that, theoretical analysis of typographical evolution can give some interesting insight, but I would be in the camp that does not accord them a status as primary rationale for encoding decisions.
> Our rationales are NOT ranked in the way you suggest. A variety of criteria are applied.

And the way you weigh the criteria?
>
>> Thus, critical need for contrasting use of the glyph distinctions would have to be established before it makes sense to discuss this further.
> Precedent for such needs is well-established. Consider the Latin Extended-D block. Sometimes it is editorial preference, and that’s not even always universal.

I think the Latin Extended-D block may have its own problems.

However, Latin as a script caters to so many varied levels of users,
from ordinary text to scholarly notations that it really cannot be used
to settle this issue.
>
>> I see no principled objection to having a font choice result in a noticeable or structural glyph variation for only a few elements of an alphabet. We have handle-a vs. bowl-a as well as hook-g vs. loop-g in Latin, and fonts routinely select one or the other.
> Well, Asmus, we encode a and ɑ as well as g and ɡ and ᵹ.
And we do that for reasons that are very different from preserving the
early and possibly transient history of a minor script.
> And we do not consider ɑ and ɡ and ᵹ to be things that ought to be distinguished by variation selectors. (I am of course well aware of IPA usage.)
Yes, and the absence of such usage in the current example makes all the
difference.
> Whole-font switching is well understood. But character origin has always been taken into account. Consider 2EBC ⺼ CJK RADICAL MEAT and 2E9D ⺝ CJK RADICAL MOON which are apparently really supposed to have identical glyphs, though we use an old-fashioned style in the charts for the former. (Yes, I am of course aware that there are other reasons for distinguishing these, but as far as glyphs go, even our standard distinguishes them artificially.)
Apparently not only in the standard, because they show as different in
the plaintext view of this message.
>
>> (It is only for usage outside normal text that the distinction between these forms matters).
> What’s “normal” text? “Normal” text in Latin probably doesn’t use the characters from the Latin Extended-D block.
"ordinary" text, if you like, reflecting standard orthographies.

As opposed to notational systems.
>
>> While the Deseret forms are motivated by their pronunciation, I'm not necessarily convinced that the distinction has any practical significance that is in any way different than similar differences in derivation (e.g. for long s-s or long-s-z for German esszett).
> One practical consequence of changing the chart glyphs now, for instance, would be that it would invalidate every existing Deseret font. Adding new characters would not.
No, if we state that both glyphs are alternates for the same character
*and if we decide, to _not_ add variation selectors* the choice is where
it belongs: with the font maker.
>
>> In fact, it would seem that if a Deseret text was encoded in one of the two systems, changing to a different font would have the attractive property of preserving the content of the text (while not preserving the appearance).
> Changing to a different font in order to change one or two glyphs is a mechanism that we have actually rejected many times in the past. We have encoded variant and alternate characters for many scripts.
If the underlying text element is the same, font switching can be the
correct choice.
>
>> This, in a nutshell, is the criterion for making something a font difference vs. an encoding distinction.
> Character identity is not defined by any single criterion.
Make it the "primary" criterion then.
> Moreover, in Deseret, it is not the case that all texts which contain the diphthong /juː/ or /ɔɪ/ write it using EW 𐐧 or OI 𐐦. Many write them as Y + U 𐐏𐐋 and O + I 𐐄𐐆. So the choice is one of *spelling*, and spelling has always been a primary criterion for such decisions.
Yes, and those other spellings are not affected.
>
>>> This is complicated by combining characters mostly identified by glyph, and the fact that while ä and aͤ may be the same character across time, there are people wanting to distinguish them in the same text today, and in both cases the theoretical falls to the practical. In this case, there are no combining character issues and there's nobody needing to use the two forms in the same text.
>> huh?
> He’s wrong there, as I pointed out. A text in German may write an older Clavieruͤbung in a citation alongside the normal spelling Klavierübung. The choice of spelling is key.
That would have to be a very specialized text. But to claim that this
needs to be possible in German in plaintext for the case of such a quote
is more than a stretch. If there is a critical need for such texts *as
plain text* in Deseret, that would be a curious fact, but perhaps decisive.

A./
Received on Sun Mar 26 2017 - 16:29:14 CDT