From: Peter Lofting (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 14:14:50 EDT
At 7:41 PM +0200 6/25/03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>If there are real distinct semantics that were "abusively" unified
>by the canonicalization, the only safe way would be to create a
>second character that would have another combining class than the
>existing one, to be used when lexical distinction from the most
>common use is necessary.
>So the added character for the modified vowel signs would have the
>same representative glyph, but would have the additional semantic
>"contraction" (clearly indicated in their name). This does not break
>the existing encoding of most texts, but allows a specific usage for
>contractions where the existing canonical equivalences would be
How do you envisage this getting into the data?
Often in Tibetan data capture, operators are keying in the appearance
of a text and do not know what a stack represents.
So the data then requires expert review after input to verify and
assign the semantic representation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 15:19:59 EDT