From: Edward H. Trager (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 08:01:55 CST
On Wednesday 2005.10.19 18:56:18 +0100, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> Andrew West wrote, on Wednesday, October 19, 2548 BE:
> >On 18/10/05, Richard Wordingham <email@example.com> wrote:
> >>The current version of the standard, TIS 620-2533, is available on-line
> >>http://www.nectec.or.th/it-standards/std620/std620.htm , in Thai.
> >Yes, I saw this page, but as you say it does not seem to cover Lao. I
> >do wonder why Thai is based on TIS 620-253 and Lao is based on TIS
> >620-2529, when both seem to be basically the same standard for Thai
> >character encoding.
> 2529 BE = 1986 AD
> 2533 BE = 1990 AD
> The was no change in the encoding.
> >It would seem that Lao is not directly based on
> >TIS 620-2529, but on a Lao mapping to TIS 620-2529. I would still like
> >to know where the Unicode Lao names originally came from, if anyone
> I'm rather surprised that Lao and Thai are distinct scripts. It would have
> been nice to have had Lao mai kon available for Thai spelling reform.
> Still, as Thai yo yak (U+0E22) is Lao nyo (U+0E8D), not Lao yo (U+0EA2),
> perhaps it has saved some hassles. Where will Indic NYO go when the gaps
> are filled in?
No, that is not a valid concept. Lao and Thai are clearly distinct scripts
just as Greek and Latin and Cyrillic are distinct scripts.
- Ed Trager
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 07:53:49 CST