They aren't! Good catch; I'd assumed from the example. Another slip-up: ideographic should modify unified CJK, not the Latin letters. Variation sequences for d

They aren't! Good catch; I'd assumed from the example. Another slip-up: ideographic should modify unified CJK, not the Latin letters. Variation sequences for double-storied 'a' and 'g' were proposed, as part of the only Unicode proposal with substantial Latin glyph variations,[1] to address the problem raised by the answer to the FAQ, Q: Can all glyph variations be represented with variation sequences? …that there are separate codepoints for only the single-storied glyphs, meaning only fonts that assign the double-storied glyphs to the original ASCII codepoints can contrast the variations. The proposal went through two rounds of UTC, - first as agendum C.4 of UTC 126 (http://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11015.htm http://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11015.htm), - then rescheduled (https://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetL2Ref.pl?126-A79 https://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetL2Ref.pl?126-A79)... - as agendum C.21 of UTC 127 (https://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11115.htm https://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11115.htm), - but ultimately wasn't acted upon (C.21.1 of https://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11116-pre.htm https://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11116-pre.htm) It did leave an extensive debate as precedent for what glyph variations are to be used for,[2] namely not localization as the proposal had largely intended. A shorter discussion in retrospective occurred when it was brought up again in 2018.[3] [1] L2/10-280 / L2/11-059 (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11059-latin-cyr-var.pdf https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11059-latin-cyr-var.pdf) [2] https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2010-m08/thread.html#20 https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2010-m08/thread.ht... [3] https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m07/thread.html#34 https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m07/threa...