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

Shriramana

It is interesting to compare:

http://skia.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz-indic.cpp

http://skia.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz-khmer.c

http://skia.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz-tibetan.c

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:
http://developer.mimer.com/charts/tibetan.htm
http://developer.mimer.com/charts/dzongkha.htm

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
methods.

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