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

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:57:24 +0100

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:44:26 +0600
Christopher Fynn <> wrote:

> In practice, the rendering of Tibetan appears to be far less complex
> than that of Khmer (with its coeng joiner) or that of Indic.

That's largely because Tibetan puts the consonants in a simple vertical
stack with the vowels at the top and bottom. Khmer has to worry about
subscripts consonants with spacing ascenders to the left and spacing
ascenders to the right. Further, the top-to-bottom length of the
ascenders depends on what is in the stack above the body of such

Received on Sun Apr 14 2013 - 04:03:13 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Apr 14 2013 - 04:03:14 CDT