Re: Non-standard Tibetan stacks (was Re: Sanskrit nasalized L)

On 8/16/2011 3:32 PM, Andrew West wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 18:19, Asmus Freytag<asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> "These stacks are highly unusual and are considered beyond the scope
>>> of plain text rendering. They may be handled by higher-level
>>> mechanisms".
>> The question is: have any such "mechanisms" been defined and deployed by
>> anyone?
> In my opinion, until someone produces a scan of a Tibetan text with
> multiple consonant-vowel sequences, and asks how they can represent it
> in plain Unicode text there is no question to be answered.

Thank you Andrew - that clarifies the issue for the non-specialist.

A./

>
> Chris Fynn asked about certain non-standard stacks he was trying to
> implement in the Tibetan Machine Uni font in an email to the Tibex
> list on 2006-12-09, but these didn't involve multiple consonant-vowel
> sequences (one stack sequence was<0F43 0FB1 0FB1 0FB2 0FB2 0F74 0F74
> 0F71> which would be reordered to<0F42 0FB7 0FB1 0FB1 0FB2 0FB2 0F71
> 0F74 0F74> by normalization which would display differently).
>
> Other non-standard stacks that I have seen involve horizontal
> progression within the vertical stack (e.g. yang written horizontally
> in a vertical stack).
>
> More recently, the user community needed help digitizing Tibetan texts
> that used the superfixed letters U+0F88 and U+0F89 within non-standard
> stacks, resulting in a proposal to encode additional letters
> (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3568.pdf).
>
> None of these non-standard stack use cases involved multiple
> consonant-vowel sequences, and I'm not sure whether I have ever seen
> an example of such a sequence. I have learnt that there is little
> point discussing a solution for a hypothetical problem, because when
> the real problems arise they likely to be something different.
>
> Andrew
>
Received on Tue Aug 16 2011 - 18:09:38 CDT