In L2/06-269 http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2006/06269-add-roman.pdf , David J. Perry has proposed (together with another characters) the following Latin letters: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER REVERSED F LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED F LATIN CAPITAL LETTER REVERSED P LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED P LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INVERTED M LATIN SMALL LETTER INVERTED M LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I LONGA LATIN SMALL LETTER I LONGA LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ARCHAIC M Of these, apparently only the capital forms were accepted, as shown at http://www.unicode.org/alloc/Pipeline.html : A7FB..A7FF LATIN EPIGRAPHIC LETTER REVERSED F LATIN EPIGRAPHIC LETTER REVERSED P LATIN EPIGRAPHIC LETTER INVERTED M LATIN EPIGRAPHIC LETTER I LONGA LATIN EPIGRAPHIC LETTER ARCHAIC M The UTC 109 meeting minutes http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2006/06324.htm do not provide details about this decision, as they simply state: [109-C33] Consensus: UTC accepts for encoding 11 characters from L2/06-269 (with some name changes) at the following codepoints ... I do not see this decision as obvious at least for the I LONGA. While the other letters appear only as standalone abbreviations (i.e. they are never part of a word in the examples provided in the proposal), the I LONGA is regularly shown as part of a word, thus behaving as a normal letter. Google searching for "I longa" yields another examples, e.g. http://www.swisseduc.ch/sprache/kapitel/docs/lat_orthographie.pdf (in German; showing several inscriptions where I LONGA is used as part of a word). With reference to the discussion of the Claudian letters which eventually were encoded as capital/small letter pairs, I propose to reconsider the decision and encode at least the I LONGA as a capital/small letter pair, based on the evidence given in the original proposal where the letter is already proposed in that way. - Karl Pentzlin