Re: Why are the double-part Indic vowel signs decomposable

From: Shriramana Sharma (samjnaa@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 11:10:50 CDT

  • Next message: Ed Trager: "Re: Why are the double-part Indic vowel signs decomposable"

    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.

    OTOH

    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