Keyur Shroff wrote: > > However, I totally agree with Kent that this funny > rendering is *not* a > > requirement of the Unicode standard, as Keyur Shroff seems > to suggest. It > > is just an example of many "several methods [that] are > available to deal > > with" strange sequences. > > A sequence should not be treated as "strange" sequence if it has been > written intentionally. It may have some contextual meaning.
I said "strange" in the sense of character sequences that are not part of the ordinary spelling of any language. In fact, a thing like a matra floating in the air or on a dotted circle is something that you'd only see in a text (not necessarily *in* an Indian language) which talks about spelling, character sets, and the like. > Also, what is good or bad is also subjective. It may also > vary from one script to another. Yes, but what is mandatory and what is not in Unicode sciould not be too much subjective, else we could not call it a "standard". _ Marco
