Re: Alternative encodings for Malayalam “nta”

梁海 Liang Hai via Unicode unicode at
Wed Oct 9 12:00:48 CDT 2019

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:04, Cibu <cibucj at> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:05 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <lianghai at <mailto:lianghai at>> 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 <>. So I had to specify 5.2 for which the text is clear in <>
Oh the Core Spec’s 5.0 -> 5.1 delta is presented on the webpage itself, but not incorporated into the PDF:

>> … 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 normalisation logic.

Right, I see. This aligns with the comments I received at the plenary discussion too. Gonna include both unideal encodings in a piece of proposed Core Spec edit, in a revised document.

梁海 Liang Hai

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list