> On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:04, Cibu <cib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:05 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <liang...@gmail.com > <mailto: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 > <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 > <https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch09.pdf> Oh the Core Spec’s 5.0 -> 5.1 delta is presented on the webpage itself, but not incorporated into the PDF:
https://unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Malayalam_Chillu_Characters >> … 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. Right, I see. This aligns with the comments I received at the plenary discussion too. Gonna include both unideal encodings in a piece of proposed Core Spec edit, in a revised document. Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io
