Rick McGowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has privately suggested moving the discussion of Combining Classes of *Tibetan* Characters from the main Unicode list [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the TIBEX list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - an "experts" list which was set up several years ago specifically to discuss proposals for encoding Tibetan characters in Unicode. If there are people who have a particular interest in Tibetan characters and have been following the thread here who would like to continue following this thread - perhaps they could ask Rick how they can join that list.
I'll follow Rick's advice - perhaps this discussion is more appropriate on the TIBEX list - even though similar issues with some Hebrew characters which have been raised here (again) as a result of this thread makes me think there may be a need for a non script specific solution or work-around to problems with cannoical combining class values. Anyway I'm going to move this discussion over there with a parting shot... Off-list Robert Chilton has pointed out to me the following: > 3. A very common occasion of 0F7E occurring with a vowel is in the stack > HaUm (orthographic sequence of 0F67 0F71 0F74 0F7E). Because 0F7E is > currently assigned a cc of zero, this *same glyph-form* could > theoretically be encoded with a total of 6 different character > sequences, resulting in 4(!) different sequences following > normalization. Properly, all 6 sequences should normalize to the same > sequence -- which is indeed the case if 0F82 or 0F83 is used in place of > 0F7E. Obviously a major problem, not only for rendering but also for > searching and sorting. FOUR different sequences possible *after* "normalisation" ??? Personally I would have rather seen all Tibetan characters having a CCV of 0 (and all pre-combined Tibetan characters *strongly* depreciated)rather than this. If someone simply follows the normal rules for writing Tibetan, then characters will be entered in a very predictable order which is far easier to process than the one(s) they can end up in after Unicode "normalisation". - Chris Fynn BTW My apologies to anyone who receives two copies of this message.
