Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

From: Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:20:27 -0600

Michael Everson wrote:

> One practical consequence of changing the chart glyphs now, for
> instance, would be that it would invalidate every existing Deseret
> font. Adding new characters would not.

I thought the chart glyphs were not normative.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Received on Sun Mar 26 2017 - 12:22:20 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?"
Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)"
Maybe in reply to: gfb hjjhjh: "Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Mar 26 2017 - 12:22:20 CDT