RE: Indic Devanagari Query

From: Marco Cimarosti (
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 13:08:19 EST

  • Next message: Keyur Shroff: "RE: Suggestions in Unicode Indic FAQ"

    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.

    _ Marco

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 13:52:39 EST