From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2006 - 18:45:07 CST
At 00:15 +0000 2006-03-26, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>If you can justify that statement for the Myanmar script, then you
>have established the case for separate encoding of AA and TALL AA.
>That still leaves open the option of doing it by variation
>selectors, but they can be rendered pointless by the Burmese always
>using a variation selector. (Pressing an AA key can generate two
>characters - the generic AA and the appropriate variation selector.)
This is pseudo-coding. I reject it.
>Does anyone care to expound the theory of variation selectors?
>There may be words in white in the TUS saying 'only for unifying CJK
>variants that the Chinese (or Japanese, especially with surnames)
>insist are different.'
You could read TUS.
>At present there is the significant possibility of ISO/IEC
>opposition to this disunification.
You don't speak for WG2.
>The creation of ASAT in place of the 2-character visible virama and
>the restriction of virama to a subjoining role immediately
>invalidates most Unicoded Myanmar script text, including my paltry
>creations. In principle that's a BAD THING. For myself, I welcome
>it and look forward to the upgrade of SIL's Padauk font.
The overwhelming majority of Burmese text on the internet is already
non-conformant to TUS. Google the character MYANMAR LETTER KA and you
will see. "Stability" is not an issue here.
>This sets a dangerous precedent of allowing a separate character for
>every non-transparent conjunct.
That's not the reason for GREAT SSA, and "dangerous" is really funny.
>Should U+1039 MYANMAR SIGN VIRAMA be the conjoiner or the visible sign?
The change to existing text is smaller if it remains the subjoiner.
00:45. I'm for bed. And I won't return to this thread on these lists.
I just can't.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 25 2006 - 18:46:22 CST