RE: sara am ordering (was RE: Why is U+17C1 of General category Mc while U+0E40 and U+0EC) are of category Lo ?

2004-04-01 Thread Kent Karlsson
Peter Constable wrote: > Your doc says, > > > And à should be ordered as à followed by à (**which is the > logical sequence, despite the Unicode compatibility decomposition**). > > > What do you mean here by "logical sequence"? That that's how > it should be interpreted phonologically and

sara am ordering (was RE: Why is U+17C1 of General category Mc while U+0E40 and U+0EC) are of category Lo ?

2004-03-31 Thread Peter Constable
Kent: Your doc says, And Ó should be ordered as Ò followed by í (**which is the logical sequence, despite the Unicode compatibility decomposition**). What do you mean here by "logical sequence"? That that's how it should be interpreted phonologically and for sorting purposes, or that that

RE: Why is U+17C1 of General category Mc while U+0E40 and U+0EC) are of category Lo ?

2004-03-31 Thread Kent Karlsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thai (and Lao, whose encoding closely parallels that of Thai) are > encoded in Unicode on unique principles: by a straight left-to-right > typewriter-style encoding. This was done for compatibility with the > pervasive Thai 8-bit standard. It also means that for colla

Re: Why is U+17C1 of General category Mc while U+0E40 and U+0EC) are of category Lo ?

2004-03-29 Thread jcowan
Patrick Andries scripsit: > Small question again. > > Why is U+17C1 KHMER VOWEL SIGN E of General category Mc (Mark, Spacing > Combining) while similar signs in Lao and Thai, related scripts, are of > General category Lo (Letter, Other) ? > > See U+0E40 THAI CHARACTER SARA E and U+0EC0 LAO VO