Peter,
> Another question similar to the Arabic one: The Tibetan block has two
> characters with compatibility decompositions: 0f77 and 0f79. Why weren't
> these given canonical decompositions like 0f78 etc? (These are discouraged
> from use, but that could still have been done with canonical decompositions
> along with excluding them from composition.)
It was a long, complicated argument that involved trying to
resolve combining classes, normalization, decomposition,
and preferred representation of Tibetan -- and it makes my
head hurt every time I try to reconstruct all the details.
Perhaps it is merely their Dharma to serve as strongly
discouraged characters with compatibility decompositions.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT