Re: Possible 'Normal' Nested Contractions for Collation

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 18:28:20 +0100

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:05:49 -0700
Markus Scherer <> wrote:

> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Wordingham, Richard (UK) <
>> wrote:

> The context is a discussion of whether it is necessary in the UCA
> (collation) spec to support interleaved contractions: Contractions
> a+b and x+y where NFD(abxy)=axby and ccc(x)<ccc(b).
> The general question is whether any properly spelled text in any
> language involves such "axby" sequences in the Unicode encoding model.
> This Balti example appears relevant only if the Balti (or Tibetan)
> encoding model in Unicode would add further pairs of combining marks
> like <U+0F71, U+0F72>, without any intervening base letter (zero
> combining class).

The Balti example <U+0F41, U+0F71, U+0F72, U+0F39> 'KHHII', if valid,
requires an interleaved contraction <U+0F41, U+0F39> (to give what was
proposed as TIBETAN LETTER KHHA). Under the currently proposed scheme,
the contraction of <U+0F71, U+0F72> would not occur, so, assuming Balti
has the usual vowel order, it would sort before KHHI instead of after

Received on Tue May 08 2012 - 12:34:53 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 08 2012 - 12:34:54 CDT