John Jenkins wrote:

>
> On Friday, November 9, 2001, at 09:03 AM, David Starner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 01:58:30AM +0000, Michael Everson wrote:
> >> Actually, some for scripts in the ConScript Registry did find that
> >> there was sufficient reason to encode them. Deseret is the best
> >> example; Shavian may be a bit dodgy but it satisfied the committees
> >
> > I'm curious; why is Deseret a better example than Shavian? Is it because
> > of brief historical use?
> >
>
> Dunno. They both have equally small modern user communities and are both
> historical curiosities in their own way. Deseret just got pushed through
> first and is, in fact, the first script to graduate from ConScript to
> Unicode.
>
> Me, I'm miffed that Deseret didn't even rate a mention in _World's Writing
> Systems_. (Of course, maybe the fact that all existing Deseret fonts are
> truly pathetic had something to do with that.) :-(

Or maybe we never heard of it.

I thought the angels took back the golden plates after Smith translated
them.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...