Re: Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059)

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

The use case would seem to be more properly served by some form of registration mechanism, like the one IVD represents for ideographs. The use of "standardized" variation sequences with the understanding that those would be (fairly) widely implemented would, in contrast, be best reserved to cases where the the encoding in the Standard resulted in deliberately unifying some variations for which there is nevertheless a common (!) use case of requiring each alternate to be selected. A./ On 7/15/2018 10:07 PM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: FAQ (http://unicode.org/faq/vs.html) states: For historic scripts, the variation sequence provides a useful tool, because it can show mistaken or nonce glyphs and relate them to the base character. It can also be used to reflect the views of scholars, who may see the relation between the glyphs and base characters differently. Also, new variation sequences can be added for new variant appearances (and their relation to the base characters) as more evidence is discovered. It states also: What variation sequences are valid? Only those listed in StandardizedVariants.txt... However the file in question contains only sections for mathematics and some rather exotic scripts. To the best of my knowledge, the only attempt to introduce additional variation sequences was the strongly criticised Karl Pentzlin's proposal L2-11/059 http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11059-latin-cyr-var.pdf What has happen to it? I don't remember any information about it on the list. However my primary question is: Are variation sequences *really* recommended for historical scripts? I ask the question because there are now several historical corpora of Polish under development, which use at present a kind of fall-back or some other ad hoc solutions for "nonce glyphs", as they are called in the FAQ. Best regards Janusz