RE: Tamil 0BB3 and 0BD7

From: Jungshik Shin (
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 11:40:51 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Berber/Tifinagh (was: Swahili & Banthu)"

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Kent Karlsson wrote:
    > Philippe Verdy wrote:
    > > Is it true for compatibility decomposition? When I look at the Unicode
    > > stability policy, I thought it only meant the canonical mappings, or

     Philippe, I wish you were right about this so that at least we could
    reinstate compatibility decomposition of complex Korean letters into
    sequences of simple letters, but unfortunately, you misread the standard
    as pointed out by Kent.

    > > Particularly in the situation where the Unicode Standard first
    > > encodes less-well documented characters and scripts, the
    > > exact character properties and behavior initially may not be
    > > well known.(...)
    > >
    > > This is our case.
    > And others. I'd really like to add (canonical even) decompositions
    > of multi-letter Hangul jamos. But we cannot even reinstate the
    > compatibility decompositions, since that would change the normal
    > forms.

      So would I. Actually, those complex Korean letters
    should not have been encoded at all in the first place as both
    of us think.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 12:31:28 EST