Have you submitted that response as a UTC document?
A./
On 10/6/2019 2:08 PM, Cibu wrote:
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
<mailto: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
