Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?

From: Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:30:04 +0100

On 11 Apr 2013, at 00:09, Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Or was the Khmer model of an invisible joiner a *later* bright idea?

Yes.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Thu Apr 11 2013 - 02:33:32 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Christopher Fynn: "Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"
Previous message: Shriramana Sharma: "Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"
In reply to: Shriramana Sharma: "Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"
Next in thread: Martin J. Dürst: "Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"
Reply: Martin J. Dürst: "Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Apr 11 2013 - 02:33:32 CDT