From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 12:49:22 CST
> From: Michael Everson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Well, the actual shape of 1B0E would imply 1B0D + 1B39, wouldn't it?
> See the bottom of page 2 of N2908.
I'm not sure what on pg 2 you're referring to.
As for whether 1b0e can be decomposed into 1b0d + 1b39, I don't know -- you and the Balinese need to clarify this. All I know is that this is not a decomposition that was proposed in L2/05-090 and approved by UTC, and the ultimate reason that decomposition wasn't in that doc is because when you, Ken and I sat down in Xiamen and made up a minimal list of atomic elements 1b0e was one of the items in that list. I don't have any opinion on whether or not to add a decomposition mapping for this other than that we should do what makes best sense for the script and its users.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 17 2006 - 12:57:45 CST