> > 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 > > Thanks for pointing this out. 🙏 I had missed it.
> 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. > So I assume the plan is to include this in the Core Spec edits along with the planned ones corresponding to L2/19-086R (chillu conjuncts) and L2/18-346 (general historical characters). Please keep me posted. Thanks!