For all the type designers out there who are using Latin Plus without looking at the spec: Onĕipŏt is not a real language. According to Underware “It’s just a technical fallback (If I remember correctly it originally had a function to eventually store unintended, incorrect diacritics in the future, for technical reasons. Maybe it can be solved in a different way meanwhile)”. So stop claiming that your fonts support Onĕipŏt.
6
Comments
2: How would changing the name help?
2: The new name could be something obvious, like Fallback with a legitimate description.
[...] ebreve is often used for words with double-meanings. For example 'Ŏnĕi' can have the meaning 'real' and 'untrue', depending on the rest of the word.
I can only assume you meant ‘exonym’, a term for which Nihilartikelians prefer the term ‘Ŏnĕinym’, except when they don’t.
The latter are used by Vietnamese, for instance; but the other accented characters required for Vietnamese are not part of this set. Similarly for Ẹẹ in Yoruba and Ẽẽ in Guaraní.
I don’t know if that is what is meant by “unintended” or “incorrect.” And I can’t imagine what technical reason would need otherwise orphaned characters to be assigned to some dummy language.
I applaud James’ approach and tone here, which work great for anyone who adopts such approach and tone who isn’t me! Kudos &c.
On an even more seriouser note, the real problem with their page on it is that they reuse ISO code from an actual language in the region.
I guess this bit of fun was from before it became fashionable to respect minorities...