From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2008 - 23:14:41 CDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> It generally *is* the case. But what that means is that
> characters will not be encoded if by precedent characters of
> that type have
> *canonical* decompositions to already encoded pieces.
> It doesn't mean that there is an absolute proscription
> against encoding complex graphic entities as characters.
And as well there are counter examples in Unicode. For example look at the
Myanmar block U+1000..U+109F, where some independant vowels (like UU) are
decomposable to another independant vowel (II) and a combining dependant
vowel (-U), but also where the associated dependant vowel (-UU) is NOT
decomposable the same way into two dependant vowels (-II, -U).
There may be other similar examples in Brahmic abugidas, but I can't
remember them without looking once again in the charts (I'd probably look at
Lao and Khmer).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 09 2008 - 10:12:24 CDT