Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:34:18 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels"

    At 09:29 AM 6/25/2003, Rick McGowan wrote:

    > > 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.
    >If there isn't a visual difference here, how could there be a lexical
    >difference? Imagine the age before computers. All you have to go on is
    >what's on the page. There isn't an inherent order in those elements; they
    >could have been written by the scribe in any order. If they appear the
    >same, you can't assign different meanings -- except by some extra-syllabic
    >informational context... right?

    On the page, you would know -- or hopefully know -- from context. But a
    search engine or a sorting algorithm looking at the characters presumably
    needs to know the difference without additional context, hence the
    character ordering is important.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores,
    are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine,
    who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint
    Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
                                                                 - Umberto Eco

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 14:56:52 EDT