Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?

On 5/28/26 2:35 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:
> Sure but Teyvat Script is, as you seem to have said, is 1 to 1 with 
> latin. So it has no need to be encoded in the first place. These other 
> scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) don't have that.

Being easily transliterated does not necessarily mean a script has no 
identity or need to be encoded.  There was the huge fuss years ago about 
the 22-letter Phonecian abjad and whether we should encode Aramaic and 
Palmyrene and Samaritan and who knows what else, or if everyone should 
just make do with (square) Hebrew.  Scripts are different when they're 
different; the fact that one maps to another doesn't make them the same 
script. (Otherwise, I'll argue to deprecate just about all of Unicode, 
except for CJK, since after all, we can always make do with font tricks 
and alternate font pages.  Oh wait, we did just that with ISO-8859).

Not to say that *every* alternate alphabet needs its own encoding.  
There are such things as fonts and typefaces and all; we don't need 
Fraktur to have its own encoding (yeah, yeah, Mathematical letters 
grumble...)  But a simple map does not make alphabets identical.

~mark