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

From: Christopher Fynn <chris.fynn_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:38:02 +0600

On 12/04/2013, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst_at_it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

> On 2013/04/11 16:30, Michael Everson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Later, yes. Bright? Most Kambodian experts disagree.
>
> Regards, Martin.

At one time there was also a proposal for an "invisible joiner"
character for Tibetan. As far as possible I think "invisible"
characters are best avoided as ordinarily the user can't see them and
doesn't always know if one is there or not.
Received on Sat Apr 13 2013 - 15:45:21 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Apr 13 2013 - 15:45:23 CDT