Christopher John Fynn wrote:
> I think this is unfair. For instance I know that over several years members
> the UTC and WG2 have spent a great deal of time and effort on the Tibetan
> block encoding - which was difficult because of the peculiarities of the
It's hardly more peculiar than Devan‚garÓ.
> it's poor documentation,
Tibetan is poorly documented? I suppose so, if you're looking for a handy
little mass-market paperback guidebook that can be found in any bookshop.
If you look a little harder, and perhaps even take the time (fancy!) to
learn a bit about the Tibetan language, you'll find abundant information.
> lack of standardisation
The script itself is used in a standard way. Are you talking about lack of
standard implementations on computers? True enough--but this is the case for
> and the fact that existing
> (non-Unicode) implementations of Tibetan in software applications are not
> very satisfactory.
The block encoding of Tibetan was also not very satisfactory the last time
I saw it (2.0, I must admit). If I recall correctly, a number of recently
created letters that are used in loan-words were missing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT