From: Richard Wordingham (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 21:07:49 CDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Richard responded:
>> > That translates to: "it can be displayed with a dumb rendering engine
>> > and a simple font".
>> Largely, yes. I suspect the default Unicode collation would also produce
>> the correct results.
> Only for the TUNE set, and only if the default table were set up
> following its binary order -- which could of course be done.
But the PUA, or at least its contiguous regions, are sorted in binary order
in the default UCA, as are most blocks of unassigned codepoints.
>> > you have to make the software
>> > *aware* of the Tamil script to establish the equivalences between the
>> > existing Tamil encoding and the TUNE encoding.
>> Are such canonical equivalences now permitted?
> If the claim were to be for identity of interpretation, as for
> combining jamos versus an equivalent preformed Hangul syllable,
> then you'd be committing yourself to canonical equivalences.
> As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the TUNE table that
> cannot already be represented with the existing Tamil characters.