On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I completely understand their idea, and agree with it. The presentation
> > forms are against the sense of the standards. Yes, I know that if they
> > didn't exist, good Unicode Arabic support would have needed to wait more,
> > but in that case, we would have already agreed to the infrastructure
The same would have been true of Korean Hangul. If 11,172
syllables had NOT been put into Unicode 2.0 or later(and only 2350 of
them had been in Unicode for the sake of *compatibility* with legacy
character sets), we'd have much more efficient infrastructure for medivial
(AND modern) Korean.
> > needed for other cursive scripts, Indic ones, Syriac, and Tibetan (any
> > missing?).
> >
>
> Thai, Lao, Khmer, Myanmar, Mongolian, etc.
And, don't forget Korean Hangul. Pango has some rudimentary
support for Korean Hangul in this direction.
Jungshik Shin
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
