Ram Viswanadha wrote: > 2) RA+HALANT+INV => RAsup > (RA+HALANT+ZWJ is treated > as Eyelash RA which is may not be the desired effect)
I have pointed out this problem several times but, so far, there was no reply. I hope that you are more successful in bringing this to the attention of the Unicode Technical Committee. > The below stand alone forms of Vowel signs cannot be > accurately represented > in Unicode. [...] > 3) INV+VOWEL SIGN I+NUKTA => VOWEL SIGN > > VOCALLIC > L > [...] > 5) INV+ VOWEL SIGN => VOWEL SIGN > VOCALLIC R +NUKTA VOCALLIC RR > 6) INV+VOWEL SIGN II+NUKTA => VOWEL SIGN > > VOCALLIC > LL Why do you say that these are not round-trip compatible? Does ISCII have VOWEL SIGN VOCALLIC L, VOWEL SIGN VOCALLIC RR, VOWEL SIGN VOCALLIC LL? > 4) INV+HALANT+RA => RAsub I think that there is no reason why ZWJ+HALANT+RA alone shouldn't represent RAsub in Unicode as well. Actually, I think that also HALANT+RA alone should be enough to represent RAsub (in Unicode, at least). But ZWJ should not harm, so one may retain it for round-trip compatibility with ISCII's INV. > Apple in their mapping tables maps the INV to LRM, and I > think they use it > when rendering like if you have a LRM in middle of Indic > codepoint stream > and it follows these rules then do something interesting. But > I am not sure, > maybe someone from Apple may correct me. I asked this question too a few times on this mailing list and to the Apple address contained in the mapping files, but had no answer. Good luck. _ Marco
