Ram Viswanadha wrote:
> 2) RA+HALANT+INV => RAsup
> (RA+HALANT+ZWJ is treated
> as Eyelash RA which is may not be the desired effect)
I have pointed out this problem several times but, so far, there was no
reply. I hope that you are more successful in bringing this to the attention
of the Unicode Technical Committee.
> The below stand alone forms of Vowel signs cannot be
> accurately represented
> in Unicode.
[...]
> 3) INV+VOWEL SIGN I+NUKTA => VOWEL SIGN
>
> VOCALLIC
> L
> [...]
> 5) INV+ VOWEL SIGN => VOWEL SIGN
> VOCALLIC R +NUKTA VOCALLIC RR
> 6) INV+VOWEL SIGN II+NUKTA => VOWEL SIGN
>
> VOCALLIC
> LL
Why do you say that these are not round-trip compatible? Does ISCII have
VOWEL SIGN VOCALLIC L, VOWEL SIGN VOCALLIC RR, VOWEL SIGN VOCALLIC LL?
> 4) INV+HALANT+RA => RAsub
I think that there is no reason why ZWJ+HALANT+RA alone shouldn't represent
RAsub in Unicode as well.
Actually, I think that also HALANT+RA alone should be enough to represent
RAsub (in Unicode, at least). But ZWJ should not harm, so one may retain it
for round-trip compatibility with ISCII's INV.
> Apple in their mapping tables maps the INV to LRM, and I
> think they use it
> when rendering like if you have a LRM in middle of Indic
> codepoint stream
> and it follows these rules then do something interesting. But
> I am not sure,
> maybe someone from Apple may correct me.
I asked this question too a few times on this mailing list and to the Apple
address contained in the mapping files, but had no answer. Good luck.
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 05 2002 - 07:43:31 EST