On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote:
> > > On 17 May 2018, at 08:47, Garth Wallace via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Hans Åberg via Unicode < > unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > >> > >> It would be best to encode the SMuFL symbols, which is rather > comprehensive and include those: > >> https://www.smufl what should be unified.org > >> http://www.smufl.org/version/latest/ > >> ... > >> > >> These are otherwise originally the same, but has since drifted. So > whether to unify them or having them separate might be best to see what > SMuFL does, as they are experts on the issue. > >> > > SMuFL's standards on unification are not the same as Unicode's. For one > thing, they re-encode Latin letters and Arabic digits multiple times for > various different uses (such as numbers used in tuplets and those used in > time signatures). > > The reason is probably because it is intended for use with music > engraving, and they should then be rendered differently. Exactly. But Unicode would consider these a matter for font switching in rich text. > There are duplicates all over the place, like how the half-sharp symbol > is encoded at U+E282 as "accidentalQuarterToneSharpStein", at U+E422 as > "accidentalWyschnegradsky3TwelfthsSharp", at U+ED35 as > "accidentalQuarterToneSharpArabic", and at U+E444 as "accidentalKomaSharp". > They are graphically identical, and the first three even all mean the same > thing, a quarter tone sharp! > > But the tuning system is different, E24 and Pythagorean. Some Latin and > Greek uppercase letters are exactly the same but have different encodings. Tuning systems are not scripts.