Re: interesting SIL-document

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 06:22:54 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: interesting SIL-document"

    On 03/02/2004 00:38, Gerd Schumacher wrote:

    >Few days ago there has been published an interesting document by the SIL Non
    >Roman Script Initiative:
    >SIL Corporate PUA Assignments
    >The document comprizes a lot of encoding canditates, and there is given
    >valuable information on some characters, which have been discussed here.
    >Best regards
    I presume you refer to one of a set of documents accessible from

    It is interesting that SIL has seen the need to include precomposed
    combinations with U+0321 palatalized hook and U+0322 retroflex hook.
    Perhaps this is because these diacritics cannot be automatically
    combined with their base characters. They can of course be included in
    an OpenType etc font as ligatures, but only if the rendering engine
    supports complex rendering with Latin script - for which the Office 2003
    version of Uniscribe is required. But I note that several characters
    which are effectively combinations with U+0334 are listed as "approved
    for addition to Unicode".

    It would be good if Microsoft could put an end to the need for such
    kludges (at least on Windows) by releasing this recent version of
    Uniscribe as a Windows update.

    "U+F25A LATIN SMALL LETTER HENG" is probably not intended as an h-ng
    combination but as h with a hook, probably a glyph variant of F222.

    There is an error in the alternative encodings for Hebrew right and left
    meteg which I will report. The alternative encoding given for "reversed
    nun" is objectionable on theoretical as well as practical grounds and so
    the PUA character should not be deprecated. The use of U+0323 for lower
    dot is also undesirable, except as a short term kludge. Proposals are in
    the pipeline for proper characters for reversed nun and lower dot.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 07:24:27 EST