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

On Mon, Jul 16 2018 at 1:08 -0700, unicode_at_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