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

From: Christopher Fynn <>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:42:02 +0600

Simply stacking glyphs doesn't really work In Tibetan either. The size
and shape of the consonants needs to be adjusted as the stacks get
more and more complex - particularly in fonts, and situations where
where there are vertical constraints. So each Tibetan glyph also needs
to be adjusted depending on what occurs above or below. The descender
of one Tibetan glyph may often occur to the right or left of another
glyph in a stack. Very rarely you find occurrences of vowels written
in the middle of a stack - or even one consonant written horizontally
beside another in the middle of a vertical stack. I don't think
anything handles these things properly though.

On 14/04/2013, Richard Wordingham <> wrote:
> 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
> subscripts.
> Richard.
Received on Sun Apr 14 2013 - 04:44:12 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Apr 14 2013 - 04:44:13 CDT