From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 17:59:34 CDT
On 14/07/2004 23:10, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
Thanks for all the clarification which I have snipped.
>
>
>>One
>>such situation is Holam Male which never takes an additional combining
>>mark*. So why can't we represent it as <VAV, HOLAM, variation selector>?
>>
>>
>
>Because the UTC has ruled out <CM, VAR> as interpretable sequences.
>
>
Is there a better reason than "because we say so"? You don't have to
answer that one.
>
>
>>After all in practice there is no normalisation problem with this. (By
>>the way, I am proposing as one option <VAV, variation selector, HOLAM>,
>>but that has been opposed on the debatable grounds that what changes is
>>not the VAV but the HOLAM - the best description is that the whole
>>grapheme cluster changes.)
>>
>>
>
>I don't have a quarrel with describing things that way -- but you
>just can't get from here to there with variation selectors.
>
>
I don't quite understand you here. Are you saying that <VAV, variation
selector, HOLAM> would be acceptable for representing a variation of the
entire grapheme cluster, or that it would not?
The alternatives which we might consider include <VAV, ZW(N)J, HOLAM>.
This corresponds closely to Peter Constable's recommendations for Indic
languages in http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-37.pdf, which is to use
<base, ZWJ, VIRAMA>, and indeed to the existing special-case rule for
Bengali RA + ya-phalaa in Figure 12 of that document. Or would we do
much better to stick to <ZW(N)J, VAV, HOLAM> or <HOLAM, ZW(N)J, VAV>,
keeping ZW(N)J outside the combining sequence?
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 18:01:01 CDT