From: C J Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Compare for instance Kannada and Telugu which share a common > > > origin in the not so distant past - and are still very near identical - > > > yet are encoded in their own ranges. > > > > They do have distinct behaviours and rendering requirements. > > > > I may be wrong but aren't the different behaviours between these two scripts > based on differences in the requirements of the (main) languages written in > these scripts rather than substantial differences in the scripts themselves? If > say the same Sanskrit text is written in both Telugu and Kannada scripts do > these different behaviours apply?
There is one significant difference between Kannada and Telugu that made them ill-suited for unification, even if ISCII compatibility had not been a goal. The vowel signs II, EE, O, and OO are decomposable characters in Kannada. They aren't decomposable in Telugu. That is a significant difference that would have required at the very least using a different encoding philosophy for the Indic scripts than that which was used, if unification was to have been considered.
