From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Wed Sep 22 2004 - 12:23:17 CDT
On Tuesday, September 21st, 2004 10:58 Peter Kirk va escriure:
> Is the intention of these named sequences to list all sequences which
> are commonly considered to be units, although not treated as such by
By the way, this begs questions I did not see clearly spelled:
Is the intention of these named sequences to list all sequences that are
commonly rendered as single glyphes? (of course, of particular importance is
this question with regard to the Indic scripts ;-))
Is the intention of these named sequences to list all sequences that may be
commonly understood as unitary when rendered, even if often the font
technology really build it from basic pieces? Here, I am thinking about the
'barakhadi', these traditional presentations in tabular form of a (Indic)
syllabary; I also believe any abugida will have a similar presentation. I am
also thinking about all these conjuncts where the second consonant have a
distinct yet systematic glyph: a number of them, particularly when they
involve -y -r or sometimes -v are not considered special; but there are more
tangential cases, like -n -m -l, in Nagari, Oriya, Malayalam, etc.
Of course, there may be a considerable debate about 'commonly'...
Particularly since there exists the danger that having such a table may be
objected by some people as a reason to refuse a combination that would NOT
be registered; also there is the problem of the sequences for which two+
different sequences are supposed to mean the same thing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 22 2004 - 12:33:21 CDT