From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 27 2009 - 22:21:00 CDT
On 8/27/2009 5:09 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On 2009-Aug-27 12:44, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>>> Most of the text in the P&P document that is complicated, is
>>> complicated for a reason, and "simplifying" it carries the risk of
>>> changing the meaning.
>> Couldn't have said it better.
> OK more to the point:
> I have a character in an Indic script that is not yet encoded. It is
> equal in appearance to another character already encoded in a
> different block but it should be given a different gc from the
> existing character. Will I be allowed to encode it or not, given the
> disunification principles? Or would it be done only on a case-by-case
There are some such characters in the Indic scripts where the
presumption (based on precedent and preference) would be not to unify.
If that's the case, it might be possible to argue an exception, but,
based on past experience, it would be an uphill battle.
Like Mark pointed out, if it is a standard letter / digit of a script,
Indic or not, then any more or less accidental (or historical) shape
similarities/equivalences are usually not obstacles to disunification.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 27 2009 - 22:24:54 CDT