Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?

From: Christopher Fynn <>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:44:26 +0600


It is interesting to compare:

In practice, the rendering of Tibetan appears to be far less complex
than that of Khmer (with its coeng joiner) or that of Indic.

Where you do get a some complexity in Tibetan script is in collation:

This would have been somewhat simpler it characters like those I
mentioned earlier had been dropped.

Perhaps some of the other Tibetan encoding proposals might have made
Tibetan collation a little simpler - but I think this would have been
at the cost of all kinds of added complexity in rendering and input

- Chris
Received on Sun Apr 14 2013 - 02:47:22 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Apr 14 2013 - 02:47:23 CDT