Request to fix multiocular O

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

Unicode 15.0 redefined the design for multiocular O, so it’s necessary to fix that in your fonts.

See:
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n3194.pdf
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5170-multiocular-o.pdf

[typiconman]

I am not convinced that this change in Unicode was correct. @starover77 please comment as well.

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

Maybe you can make new glyph as default form, while previous glyph available as style alternates.

[starover77]

Всех с праздником!

Before we make a decision, let's do our research. Here are some questions that need to be considered:

1. Who originally proposed the character "Multiocular O" for inclusion in the Unicode Standard? (Answer: Michael Everson)

2. What sources were used to support this proposal? (Answer: Карский, 1979, Reprint of 1928 edition, based on a SINGLE manuscript, a Psalter from c. 1429)

3. What is the shape of the character (i.e. how many "eyes") in the sources that were originally consulted? (Answer: There are 10 eyes in this source, not 7, and Michael is now a bit apologetic for simplifying the character. It seems that the 10-eyed version is likely to be the correct form.)

4. Who was responsible at Unicode for approving the character as it currently stands (with 7 eyes instead of 10)? (Answer: The Unicode Consortium, ostensibly under the influence of Michael Everson, because who else among them would know anything about this?)

5. Who has proposed a revision to the shape of the character? (Answer: Once again, it is Michael Everson, who decided to revise the character after "Étienne FD" tweeted him that Michael had made a mistake in his original proposed design.)

So, considering that this strange and very rare character only appears in one single manuscript source that we currently are aware of, does it really have any genuine impact on our use of this character in modern reproductions of period literature? Are there any justifiable occasions when any one of us will need to even use it? Does it justify our attention to revise it?

If there is a loud enough demand that the character be revised in our fonts, we can do it, but personally I consider it to be rather low in my needs and priorities.

[typiconman]

Pace Michael Everson, someone should do his own paleographic research and see if this character occurs in other manuscripts as well.