Talk:Runic (Unicode block)

Writing systems Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ordering

Dbachmann added the text: "Michael Everson in 2001 criticized specifically the ordering of the characters in this standard. The ISO Runes Project treated the runes as essentially glyph variants of the Latin script. Everson argued that the native futhark ordering is well established, and that it is unusual for UCS to order letters not in Latin alphabetical order rather than according to native tradition"; and noted in an inline comment to the reference that "this seems hardly possible, as the ordering under dicussion here is part of Unicode 3.0 (1999)" This is because of confusion between two different ISO standards. The ordering that Everson criticises is the collation order of Unicode characters specified in ISO/IEC 14651, which is unrelated to the order in which characters are encoded in ISO/IEC 10646 (=Unicode). Therefore this paragraph should be removed from this article, as it refers to the collation order (defined in ISO/IEC 14651) not the order of the characters in the Unicode block defined in ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode. BabelStone (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for the prompt explanation. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Runic font for Wikipedia

Is there a (standard) runic (Younger Futhark) font wich can be used at Wikipedia for the Old Norse incubator? --Gentenaar~nlwiki (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]