L2/18-181

[Michael Everson via Unicode]

It sounds to me like a fault in the keyboard software, which could be fixed by the people who own and maintain that software.

> On 17 May 2018, at 01:20, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 00:34:35 +0100
> Michael Everson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
>> This is not a fault of the encoding.
>> 
>>> On 16 May 2018, at 23:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
>>> <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think simple Windows keyboards have a limit of 4 16-bit code
>>> units; for an Indic SMP script, one couldn't map <x> to a single
>>> key, as it would require 6 code units.  
> 
> It is a consequence of the policy of avoiding precomposed characters.
> If there were a precomposed character for <x>, the keyboard could emit
> that character - job done.
> 
> One objection is that one would need a sequence of decompositions:
> 
> <XA> = <KA_PLUS, SSA>
> <KA_PLUS> = <KA, VIRAMA>
> 
> Some people are vehemently opposed to unnatural characters like
> <KA_PLUS>.
> 
> Presumable the official view is that Windows Text Services have taken us
> beyond that point, and the likes of <XA> above are not needed.
> 
> If X persists, perhaps named sequences should be assigned numbers so
> that X can make a generic allocation of keysym codes to named
> sequences.
> 
> Richard.