From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 07 2007 - 14:17:41 CDT
-On [20070607 20:15], Eric Muller (email@example.com) wrote:
> I think that what Ambarish is telling is us is that what Unicode has
> described as RA_sub (see rule R6 in section 9.1), aka vattu in OpenType,
> should really considered as made of two parts, one stroke for RA and one
> stroke for a halant.
> In everything I have seen from Unicode and OpenType, vattu is viewed as an
> atomic object, and is graphically depicted as two connected strokes. Is it
> common to display a vattu as two disconnected strokes?
Pardon me if I sound dumb, but looking at page 305 (9.1 R6) the TTHA (U+0920)
that's shown already has a halant/virama. Next we add RA (U+0930) and we get
TTHA (U+0920) + RA_sub/vattu. In the fonts I use this gets displayed with a
more dedicated glyph for the vattu.
For example, in the Mangal font on Windows this gets properly replaced by one
glyph displaying the vattu.
So where/how do you see two disconnected strokes?
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ Speak the sweet truth...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 07 2007 - 14:20:50 CDT