On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 18:44:41 +0530 Shriramana Sharma <samj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Richard Wordingham > <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On the contrary, doubling for (historical) retroflexion is a fairly > > clear convention. > Where, please? I have never heard of it. (But of course my knowledge > is limited.) If one is used to the dot below for retroflexion, it leaps out at one as soon as one reads the code chart accompanying the Devanagari block. As far as I am aware, the convention is not documented anywhere. Richard.
