RE: Proposal to add Bengali Khanda Ta

• Previous message: Antoine LECA: "Re: Proposal to add Bengali Khanda Ta"
• Maybe in reply to: Andy White: "RE: Proposal to add Bengali Khanda Ta"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On 12/02/2002 10:23:54 AM "Andy White" wrote:

>> > Marco wrote
>>
>> My counter-proposal is:
>>
>> 09A4 + 034F + 09CD [= Khanda Ta]
>> (TA + CGJ + VIRAMA)

>I thought about your proposal and checked up on the semantics of CGJ. The
>Standard states,
> "In particular, inserting a combining grapheme joiner between two
>characters has no effect on their ligation or cursive joining behaviour"
>Would that mean that CGJ should not change the shape of Ta Virama?
>Any way I have a new counter, counter proposal. See my nest message.

I don't think it would be a good idea to use CGJ for some new Indic shaping
control; that kind of thing is only likely to get us into trouble down the
road.

- Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485

• Next message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: Default properties for PUA characters???"
• Previous message: Antoine LECA: "Re: Proposal to add Bengali Khanda Ta"
• Maybe in reply to: Andy White: "RE: Proposal to add Bengali Khanda Ta"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 17:32:51 EST