On 7/17/2019 4:54 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
then the Unicode version (age) used for Hieroglyphs should also be assigned to Hieratic.
It is already.
In fact the ligatures system for the "cursive" Egyptian Hieratic is so complex (and may also have its own variants showing its progression from Hieroglyphs to Demotic or Old Coptic), that probably Hieratic should no longer be considered "unified" with Hieroglyphs, and its existing ISO 15924 code is then not represented at all in Unicode.
It *is* considered unified with Egyptian hieroglyphs, until such time as anyone would make a serious case that the Unicode Standard (and students of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, in both their classic, monumental forms and in hieratic) would be better served by a disunification.
Note that *many* cursive forms of scripts are not easily "supported" by out-of-the-box plain text implementations, for obvious reasons. And in the case of Egyptian hieroglyphs, it would probably be a good strategy to first get some experience in implementations/fonts supporting the Unicode 12.0 controls for hieroglyphs, before worrying too much about what does or doesn't work to represent hieratic texts adequately. (Demotic is clearly a different case.)
For now ISO 15924 still does not consider Egyptian Hieratic to be "unified" with Egyptian Hieroglyphs; this is not indicated in its descriptive names given in English or French with a suffix like "(cursive variant of Egyptian Hieroglyphs)", *and it has no "Unicode Age" version given, as if it was still not encoded at all by Unicode*,
That latter part of that statement (highlighted) is false, as is easily determined by simple inspection of the Egyh entry on:
https://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html --Ken
