Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

From: Valeriy E. Ushakov (
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 11:47:26 EDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Revised N2586R"

    On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:31:51 -0700, Andrew C. West wrote:

    > > Err, as in this particular case one vowel sign is above and the other
    > > one is below the stack - i.e. they don't interact spatially - you
    > > cannot really distinguish them. ;)
    > I know that the vowel signs do not interact with each other
    > typographically, but what's that got to do with anything ? I'm
    > talking about the logical ordering of the Unicode codepoints used to
    > encode some Tibetan text, not the physical appearance of the glyphs
    > that are used to render that sequence of codepoints.
    > What I'm suggesting is that although "cui" <0F45, 0F74, 0F72> and
    > "ciu" <0F45, 0F72, 0F74> should be rendered identically, the logical
    > ordering of the codepoints representing the vowels may represent
    > lexical differences that would be lost during the process of
    > normalisation.

    And given that the two look identical in writing in the first palce,
    this lexical difference had a chance to originate exactly *where*?
    You are putting the cart before the horse.

    Also note that the original question from Chris is about things that
    do interact spatially.

    SY, Uwe

    --                         |       Zu Grunde kommen            |       Ist zu Grunde gehen

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 12:40:12 EDT