From: Shriramana Sharma (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 11:10:50 CDT
On 2009-Sep-03 20:24, Eric Muller wrote:
>> Yet "compatibility decompositions" are provided for all the two-part
>> Indic vowels.
> Those are vowel *signs*.
All right, vowel signs. That still does not answer the question of why
one is allowed two different ways to encode the same word. In Latin,
LATIN SMALL LETTER A + COMBINING MACRON
LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH MACRON
has some meaning to it and both mean the same.
TAMIL LETTER KA + TAMIL VOWEL SIGN E + TAMIL VOWEL SIGN AA
has no meaning to it and certainly not the meaning of
TAMIL LETTER KA + TAMIL VOWEL SIGN O
I know that Unicode is not concerned with the encoding sequences being
"meaningful", but still, would it be wrong or at least frowned upon if
I, while encoding a new Indic script, refrained from decomposing these
two-part vowel signs?
-- Shriramana Sharma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 03 2009 - 11:13:50 CDT