Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no

From: Glenn Adams (glenn@spyglass.com)
Date: Fri Aug 15 1997 - 19:18:18 EDT

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Ess-zed (was: Ligaturing)"
Previous message: Timothy Partridge: "Re: Ligaturing"
Maybe in reply to: Maurice J Bauhahn: "Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Next in thread: Timothy Partridge: "Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 03:18 PM 8/15/97 -0700, Timothy Partridge wrote:
>Two code encoding seems to be consistent also with the Thai which I
>understand is closely related to Khmer.

Actually not. Thai doesn't have subscript or conjunct forms. The languages
also are unrelated. Of course there is a historical relationship between modern
Thai script and Old Khmer script.

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Ess-zed (was: Ligaturing)"
Previous message: Timothy Partridge: "Re: Ligaturing"
Maybe in reply to: Maurice J Bauhahn: "Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Next in thread: Timothy Partridge: "Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT