On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 I wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 Maurice Bauhahn wrote:
> > Thank you Michael for the information you passed on. Thank you for
> > disclosing at what the stage Thai encoding was changed.
> I have recently come up with a hypothesis that could explain some
> of the basic working in Thai that favorises the "glyph-based" encoding
> now in Unicode/ISO10646: The fact that Thai is an isolating language,
> not having declinations/conjugations, could mean that as long as the
> syllable has a well-defined encoding,
Sorry for this uncompleted sentence. I was not sure whether I should
write this or not, but in the end forgot to make a decision. Now that
it is out, I better complete it.
Well, my idea was that for many language processing tasks, in particular
e.g. for morphemic analysis, the isolating nature of Thai, in contrast
to many of the other Bhramic scripts used for Indo-European languages,
created less needs for a character-based encoding.
With this, I don't want to suggest that the encoding of other scripts
in the Bhramic family should be different depending on the class of
language they are used for. I just want to try to understand why
different encoding principles are used, and what, among many other
aspects, could have influenced the choice.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT