On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 18:33:00 +0100 Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017, at 18:20, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > > Michael Everson wrote: > >> 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. > > I thought the chart glyphs were not normative. > Come on, Doug. The letter W is a ligature of V and V. But sure, the > glyphs are only informative, so why don’t we use an OO ligature > instead? A script-stlye font might legitimately use a glyph that looks like a small omega for U+0077 LATIN SMALL LETTER W. Small omega, of course, is an οο ligature. More to the point, a font may legitimately use the same glyphs for U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G and U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G. A more serious issue is the multiple forms of U+014A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ENG, for which the underlying unity comes from their being the capital form of U+014B LATIN SMALL LETTER ENG. Are there not serious divergences with the shapes of the Syriac letters? Richard.