Re: Alternative encodings for Malayalam “nta”
梁海 Liang Hai via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Oct 9 12:00:48 CDT 2019
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:04, Cibu <cibucj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:05 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <lianghai at gmail.com <mailto: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 <https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0>. So I had to specify 5.2 for which the text is clear in https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch09.pdf <https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch09.pdf>
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...
More information about the Unicode