From: C J Fynn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 11:14:51 CST
Peter Constable <email@example.com>
> > Compare for instance Kannada and Telugu which share a common origin in
> > not
> > so distant past - and are still very near identical - yet are
> encoded in
> > their own ranges.
> They do have distinct behaviours and rendering requirements.
I may be wrong but aren't the different behaviours between these two scripts
based on differences in the requirements of the (main) languages written in
these scripts rather than substantial differences in the scripts themselves? If
say the same Sanskrit text is written in both Telugu and Kannada scripts do
these different behaviours apply?
If Kannada and Telugu had been unified would there have been a problem making
Uniscribe work for the needs of both the Kannada speaking and Telugu speaking
There are also differences in shaping and rendering when Devanagri is used to
write Nepali and Hindi and differences in the preferred glyph forms.
Perhaps more to the point of the current discussion, are there any distinct
shaping behaviours and rendering requirements between Phoenician & Hebrew such
as there are between Kannada and Telugu?
At what point should distinct behaviours and rendering requirements qualify
scripts with a common origin to be encoded separately? There are some
differences in shaping behaviours different forms of Latin script and some
pretty substantial differences in shaping behaviours between different forms of
Tibetan script - yet different forms of Latin script and different forms of
Tibetan script are not encoded separately (with the exception of 'phags pa).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT