From: Richard Wordingham (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 03 2006 - 13:18:31 CST
Mark Leisher wrote on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:17 PM
> I'm working on a program to convert the visual encoding used by the Innwa
> font (and others) into Unicode.
> 1. One glyph provided in these fonts (at position 0x40) looks like U+100F
> with a rotated and subscripted U+100D. Is U+100F U+1039 U+100D the proper
> sequence to produce this glyph?
Yes, unless it's not a combination of them. There's no dispute on this
combination. (TT.TTHA and DD.DDHA are not totally secure - a DD.DDA like
combination for the latter is plausible, but apparently unattested.) I've
attached the forms given by the SIL Padauk font. The NN.DDHA combination is
likely to be laid out as a proper conjunct in the next version of the font -
it's apparently absent from Burmese, and the Pali examples are dubious
words, being at best doublets of words in NN.TTHA. The font produces
attested combinations, so it manges to handle names like 'Ngwe'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 03 2006 - 13:28:23 CST