At 16:35 -0800 1997-01-17, unicode@Unicode.ORG wrote:
>I understood your complaint about Tibetan to be with how they handled
>subjoined consonants...were your disagreements deeper than that? Although
>I prefer explicitly coded subjoined consonants for Khmer...the issue is
>not cut and dried and compromise is feasible.
*I* think (having spent nine months of last year working with the Tibetans
in WG2 on their script) that Tibetan Stacked Consonants are not the same
thing as Khmer Subjoined Consonants. As Rick says, Tibetan encoding was a
special case in terms of Brahmic scripts.
>> And to make it clear, I don't necessarily think that was the OPTIMAL
>> for Tibetan, it is ONE solution, and since it has been encoded we should
>> it as intended and not inconvenience all uses and implementers by
>> or ipmlementing anything else, even if the potential components of another
>> "style" are available in the codeset.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rick here; Hugh Ross and I have been working on
a paper on this point.
-- Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire (Ireland) Gutháin: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396 http://www.indigo.ie/egt 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT