Thanks for addressing this. Here is my response: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6L82VRmCGc9Fb4AOitNk4MT7Nu4V8aKUJo_1mW5X1o/
In summary, my take is: The sequence <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> for ൻ്റ (<<chillu N, subscript RRA>>) should not be legitimized as an alternate encoding; but should be recognized as a prevailing non-standard legacy encoding. On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:57 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <liang...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > (Microsoft Peter and Andrew, search for “Windows” in the document.) > > (Asmus, in the document there’s a section 5, *ICANN RZ-LGR situation*—let > me know if there’s some news.) > > This is a pretty straightforward document about the notoriously > problematic encoding of Malayalam <*chillu n*, bottom-side sign of *rra*>. > I always wanted to properly document this, so finally here it is: > > L2/19-345 <http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetMatchingDocs.pl?L2/19-345> > *Alternative encodings for Malayalam "nta"* > Liang Hai > 2019-10-06 > > > Unfortunately, as <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> has already become the de facto > standard encoding, now we have to recognize it in the Core Spec. It’s a bit > like another Tamil *srī* situation. > > An excerpt of the proposal: > > Document the following widely used encoding in the Core Specification as > an alternative representation for Malayalam [glyph] (<chillu n, bottom-side > sign of rra>) that is a special case and does not suggest any productive > rule in the encoding model: > > <U+0D28 ന MALAYALAM LETTER NA, U+0D4D ◌് MALAYALAM SIGN > VIRAMA, U+0D31 റ MALAYALAM LETTER RRA> > > > Best, > 梁海 Liang Hai > https://lianghai.github.io > >