🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:54 AM Arthur Reutenauer <
arthur.reutenauer@normalesup.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:16:11PM -0800, Mariusz WODZICKI wrote:
> > Thank you, Daniel, for your work. It is highly appreciated. I feel that a
> > lot more work has to be done regarding the graphemes that are commonly
> used
> > in manuscripts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times. A limited
> number
> > found their way to the Unicode Standard already, much more is needed.
>
>   It’s unlikely that many more characters could be encoded in Unicode to
> reproduce medieval manuscripts.


I am not certain I understand the reason why?

There are certain set repertories of ligatures, suspensions, et cetaera,
that are standard for certain places and certain periods. A good example
is, e.g., the scripts used at the Court of Burgundy in the XV-th Century.
Some of the characters of those historic scripts are in the Unicode, while
others are not, and the ones that are were added on a clearly “ad hoc”
basis. If somebody else was making the proposal to the Unicode committee,
more characters would have been added. Private area is not really a
solution, in view of the historicity of those scripts. If we plan poorly
today, and there are plenty unfortunately signs of poor planning in the
character allocation to Unicode blocks, some time in the future somebody
else will be making up for our failings today with the result that a single
script will be scattered through several blocks of Unicode, belonging to
different Planes. I find this situation far from ideal.


O rogate was the only clear candidate
> from Old Polish; if you need other glyphs your needs will probably be
> better addressed at the font level, or by extending the MUFI repertoire
> in the private use area.
>
>         Best,
>
>                 Arthur
>