No text, but a visual code

[ReneZ]

I agree with you Hermes that Voynich has always been colonized by people interested in linguistics, cryptology or computers. There have been few serious, academic iconological studies, which is where, in my opinion, the solution to this mystery lies.

Here's a historical perspective of that idea.

In the 1990's the then Beinecke curator responsible for the MS basically said (paraphrasing here):
Leave the analysis of the book and the illustrations to the experts (medievalists, historians of art and science).
Where the amateur community can really help is by analysing the text using software, statistics etc.

Now this is not really what happened after that, but at least it is a sensible point of view.
(And I fully agree that everyone is free to pursue his own favourite interests).

I agree with the viewpoint that, what the text means (and implicitly whether it is meaningful or not), has to come from detailed, specific, concrete analyses. Here we have data that can be processed in an objective manner.
There is not much need for 'feelings' or 'suspicions' or 'expert opinion' to decide whether there is meaning or not.

Now, unfortunately, there is no such thing as a test for 'meaning'. Progress has been gradual, and indications are pointing either way.
It is true that some of the easy cases, where it would be clear that the text is meaningful, have not materialised.