On Mon, Jul 16 2018 at 1:08 -0700, unicode@unicode.org writes: > The use case would seem to be more properly served by some form of > registration mechanism, like the one IVD represents for ideographs.
I agree. > > 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. I agree. [...] > 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... The full answer is: Only those listed in StandardizedVariants.txt, emoji-variation-sequences.txt, or the registered sequences listed in the Ideographic Variation Database (IVD). Do we agree that the statements are not consistent, at least with your view, which I share? I understand there is no sufficient demand for the Unicode Consortium maintaining a supplementary non-ideographic variation database. Hence for the time being a kind of Private Use variation database seems to be the only solution - am I right? Best regards Janusz -- , Janusz S. Bien emeryt (emeritus) https://sites.google.com/view/jsbien