From: Marco Cimarosti (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 13:08:19 EST
Christopher John Fynn wrote:
> I had thought that the argument for including KSSA as a seperate
> character in the Tibetan block (rather than only having U+0F40 and
> U+0FB5) was originally for compatibility / cross mapping with
> Devanagari and other Indic scripts.
Which is not a valid reason either, considering that U+0F69 and the
combination U+0F40 U+0FB5 are *canonically* equivalent. This means that
normalizing applications are not allowed to treat U+0F69 differntly from
U+0F40 U+0FB5, including displaying them differently or mapping them
differently to something else.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 13:52:39 EST