From: Avarangal (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 16:48:46 EST
As Michka wrote the matter (x , ksh) is being discussed elsewhere at
Sorry it was typo: It should be ng in English (not en) and ng in penguin.
I can't take my head off: keep saying rendering instead of complex
rendering. I'll try.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ewell" <email@example.com>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Avarangal" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: A case for Tamil-X (k sh)
> Sinnathurai Srivas <avarangal at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> > ie, with rendering enabled one can not have ksh, but only x.
> > without rendering only ksh is possible and not x.
> "Without rendering," neither is possible. As I tried to explain last
> July 22, the term "rendering" refers to the general process of mapping
> characters to glyphs. The process you are talking about is "complex
> > An analogy is
> > en in English is a single consonant (though written as en), but
> > en in penguin is two independent consonants.
> How can "en" in "English" be considered a single consonant? It's
> pronounced [ɪŋ], a vowel (U+026A) followed by a consonant (U+014B). The
> g is pronounced separately: [ˈɪŋɡlɪʃ].
> A better analogy would be:
> sh in hogwash is a single consonant (though written as sh), but
> sh in hogshead is two independent consonants.
> There may be merit in adding this new "x" character (or perhaps the
> problem could be solved with ZWNJ or ZWJ), but Michael is correct:
> although it's a good idea to discuss it on the list first, nothing will
> be considered for addition unless a proper proposal is written and
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 17:29:54 EST