RE: Does the Egyptian Hieroglyphic proposal support Budge?

The hieroglyphic repertoire used in the Budge Dictionary (of around 3000
signs) used a font by Harrison & Sons rather than the Holzhausen (Vienna)
font - dropped due to the inconvenience of the Great War. Both Holzhausen
and Harrison are expansions of the Theinhardt font originally created for
Lepsius. The Dover reprint of the dictionary omits the full font listing.
His early publications used a much smaller repertoire but this grew over
time.

So the short answer is much but not all can be represented in the current
Unicode set. Gardiner (the source for this set) was mainly focussed on
Middle Egyptian so you will meet deficiencies in topics such as older
material (e.g. Pyramid Texts) and Late/Ptolemaic texts. 

My private zone (EGPZ) list (also around 3000 signs at v1.0 and a superset
of the Unicode repertoire) was not influenced by Budge but nevertheless does
have some useful overlap with Theinhardt/Holzhausen/Harrison/.

In any event, you will probably want to transcribe into a 'Manuel de Codage'
(MdC type) format as used by Egyptologists in the first instance (at least
for any work planned for the near/medium term).

Bob Richmond
[email protected]

From David Starner:

Does the current Egyptian Hieroglyphic proposal support the works of
E. A. Budge? I know that Budge gets little respect among
Egyptologists, but 20 of his works are in print by Dover Publications
and widely disseminated, and they're somewhere on my list to scan and
transcribe for Project Gutenberg. As extremely popular works, I'd like
to know that I could accurately represent them in Unicode Egyptian.