I am wondering why it was decided to include in Unicode 2.0, two
encodings for each Tibetan consonant (one the nominal form, and the other
the subjoined form). The syllabic principles of the Tibetan script seems
to be about the same as for the Indian scripts; why not require encoding
Tibetan dead consonants with the virama, as is required for Devanagari,
etc?
Are the Tibetan subjoined characters considered to be equal to the
nominal form preceded by VIRAMA; i.e., 0F90 = 0F84 + 0F40? If so, does
one have the discretion to choose the method of encoding, and is either
method preferred?
Since distinct codes have been allocated for Tibetan subjoined
consonants, is it expected that distinct codes will be allocated for
Burmese and/or Khmer sub-consonants?
regards,
mike forgey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Forgey "A cross on every 't',
2201 W. William Cannon Dr. #224 a dot on every 'i'."
Austin, TX 78745
Tel: (512) 441-7390
Fax: (512) 441-7742
Email: forgey@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT