L2/08-304

Date/Time:    Sat Aug  9 23:00:14 CDT 2008
Contact:      cfynn@gmx.net
Name:         Chris Fynn
Report Type:  Public Review Issue
Opt Subject:  Tibetan Chars in PR 122


Deprecating 
0F73 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN II 
0F75 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN UU 
0F77 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC RR 
0F79 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC LL 
0F81 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN REVERSED II

makes a great deal of sense.

However I see no benefit in deprecating 
0F07 (༇) TIBETAN MARK YIG MGO TSHEG SHAD MA. I believe the
rationale is that now that U+0FD2 and U+0FD3 are encoded the
same glyph shape can be achieved with the sequence:
U+0FD3 U+0F0D U+0FD3 U+0F0D

However the glyph shape of U+0F0D generally does not match
the shape of the strokes in U+0F07 - so this would not work
without adding additional components and contextual shaping
rules to fonts. 

Additionally this would seem to  introduce a de-facto equivalence
similar to a decomposition for U+0F07 where there was none before
and this may have possibly undesirable consequences.

Therefore I would advise leaving  U+0F07 unchanged.

I concur that deprecating U+0F73, U+0F75, U+0F77, U+0F79,
U+0F81 makes sense.

- Chris Fynn
National Library of Bhutan