On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:05 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <liang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Prior to Unicode 5.2, the encoding of the cluster [glyph] (<<chillu > N, subscript RRA>> /ntʌ/) was not clearly defined. … > > > You mean 5.1, right? The encoding has been specified since 5.1. > I couldn't get the text for 5.1 from https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0. So I had to specify 5.2 for which the text is clear in https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch09.pdf > > … and <NA, VIRAMA, ZWJ, RRA> … > > > How can implementations support this encoding without breaking the > side-by-side form ൻറ though? > Here is the difference between our approaches. You probably are trying to say that <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> is a valid sequence and hence the requirement of being non-conflicting with the rest. I am not recommending that. I just wanted to document the fact there is significant usage of <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> for stacked ൻ്റ and <NA, VIRAMA, ZWJ, RRA>, to a lesser degree. Fonts may or may not resolve the conflict of <NA, VIRAMA, ZWJ, RRA> sequence. However, higher level systems may be able to resolve it by additional context information. We should also continue to specify that <CHILLU N, VIRAMA, RRA> is the standard sequence to help the input methods and other normalisation logic. >