Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

From: Peter Lofting (lofting@apple.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 14:14:50 EDT

  • Next message: Tom Gewecke: "William's Nightmares"

    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
    >inappropriate.

    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.

    Peter

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 15:19:59 EDT