Flaw on Side View vs Front View Emoji Pairs?

Here is an issue that admittedly is unsignificant when compared to on-going world events, but I need to work on some documents to be finished these days. Some transport emoji pairs appear to have been encoded at the same time (6.0), but have their glyphs swapped in some current font(s).

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 22 Mar 2017, at 21:39, David Starner wrote: > > Does "Яussia" require a new Latin letter because the way R was written has a > different origin than the normal R? But it doesn’t. It’s the Latin letter R turned backwards by a designer for a logo. We wouldn’t encode

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:54 AM Michael Everson 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

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 22 Mar 2017, at 20:26, James Kass wrote: > Michael Everson wrote, > >> The old EW and OI and the new EW and OI are clearly *different* letters. > > "Different" versus "variant”? Yes, different. All of them share the SHORT I [ɪ] stroke but the base characters are Ѕ Љ

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Michael Everson wrote, > The old EW and OI and the new EW and OI are > clearly *different* letters. "Different" versus "variant"? Michael's analysis seems correct. If Deseret was not already in the Standard, a new proposal for its encoding including eight characters covering the two dipthongs

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 22 Mar 2017, at 16:50, John H. Jenkins wrote: > > My own take on this is "absolutely not." This is a font issue, pure and > simple. There is no dispute as to the identity of the characters in question, > just their appearance. There’s identity in terms of intended usage

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

My own take on this is "absolutely not." This is a font issue, pure and simple. There is no dispute as to the identity of the characters in question, just their appearance. In any event, these two letters were never part of the "standard" Deseret Alphabet used in printed materials. To the

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

>> If the user community needs to preserve the distinction in plain-text, then >> variation selection is the right approach. > True. However, the user community is tiny, and I suspect that those variation > selectors would never get used. I do not use Deseret myself. I opine that encoding the

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

The right first thing to do is to examine the letterforms and determine on structural grounds whether there is a case to be made for encoding. Beesley claimed in 2002 that the glyphs used for EW [ju] and OI [ɔɪ] changed between 1855 and 1859. Well, OK. 1. The 1855 glyph for Ч EW is evidently