Re: Alternative encodings for Malayalam “nta”
Cibu via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Oct 9 02:04:35 CDT 2019
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:05 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <lianghai at gmail.com> wrote:
> Prior to Unicode 5.2, the encoding of the cluster [glyph] (<<chillu
> N, subscript RRA>> /ntʌ/) was not clearly defined. …
> You mean 5.1, right? The encoding has been specified since 5.1.
I couldn't get the text for 5.1 from
https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0. So I had to specify 5.2 for
which the text is clear in
> … and <NA, VIRAMA, ZWJ, RRA> …
> How can implementations support this encoding without breaking the
> side-by-side form ൻറ though?
Here is the difference between our approaches. You probably are trying to
say that <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> is a valid sequence and hence the requirement of
being non-conflicting with the rest. I am not recommending that. I just
wanted to document the fact there is significant usage of <NA, VIRAMA, RRA>
for stacked ൻ്റ and <NA, VIRAMA, ZWJ, RRA>, to a lesser degree. Fonts may
or may not resolve the conflict of <NA, VIRAMA, ZWJ, RRA> sequence.
However, higher level systems may be able to resolve it by additional
context information. We should also continue to specify that <CHILLU N,
VIRAMA, RRA> is the standard sequence to help the input methods and other
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode