Re: Tibetan/Burmese/Khmer

From: Glenn Adams (
Date: Thu Jan 16 1997 - 04:38:09 EST

At 12:48 AM 1/16/97 -0800, unicode@Unicode.ORG wrote:
> - how does UCS Tibetan avoid the alternative spellings problem outlined
> above?

It normalizes data (according to its definition of normal) at some well-
defined boundary.

> - would a UCS Tibetan imlementation be "wrong" if it allowed just base
> characters to be input?

There is very little that could be construed as 'wrong' in regard to
the conformance clause of Unicode and even less so for 10646. Whether
it would be 'wrong' in terms of giving users what they want, only the
market can decide.

Glenn Adams

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT