RE: Proposal to add four characters for Kashmiri to the BMP of the UCS

From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2008 - 23:14:41 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Enquiry for Unicode 5.2"

    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