From: Ed Trager (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 12:57:50 CDT
What about the case of preparing a primary school reader or text book
where one wants to be able to show how the decomposed parts are fit
together to write words on paper? For example, what if I want an
illustration using the following string:
U0BCA U002B U0B95 U002B U0BBE U003D U003E U0B95 U0BCA
ெ+க+ா => கொ
With this line of reasoning, one would want to be able to decompose
multi-part vowel signs for all Indic and Indic-derived scripts bearing
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Shriramana Sharma<email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 - 13:01:14 CDT