> On 28 May 2018, at 15:10, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2018 10:08:30 +0200 > Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > >> It is not about precision, but concepts. Like B, Β, and В, which >> could have been unified, but are not. > > Unifying these would make a real mess of lower casing!
German has a special sign ß for "ss", without upper capital version. > What is the context in which the Arab use would benefit from having a > different encoding? Maybe if they decide to change the glyph, then what already is encoded would get the right appearance. But SMuFL might have had other reasons: the glyphs should probably be designed together. And it is simple, as one does not need to investigate their uses too much. For example, the Turkish AEU sharps are microtonal, not the ordinary ones. So if the Turkish accidentals have their own code points, one can change that later.
