Michael Everson wrote:
> At 02:13 -0800 2003-01-29, Keyur Shroff wrote:
> >I beg to differ with you on this point. Merely having some provision for
> >composing a character doesn't mean that the character is not a candidate
> >for inclusion as separate code point.
> Yes, it does.
> >India is a big country with millions of people geographically
> >divided and speaking variety of languages. Sentiments are attached
> >with cultures which may vary from one geographical area to another.
> >So when one of the many languages falling under the same script
> >dominate the entire encoding for the script, then other group of
> >people may feel that their language has not been represented
> >properly in the encoding.
> A lot of these "feelings" are simply WRONG, and that has to be faced.
> The syllable KSSA may be treated as a single letter, but this does
> not change the fact that it is a ligature of KA and SSA and that it
> can be represented in Unicode by a string of three characters.
Of course an anomoly is that KSSA *is* encoded in the Tibetan
block at U+0F69. In normal Tibetan or Dzongkha words KSSA
U+0F69 (or the combination U+0F40 U+0FB5) does not occur
- AFAIK it is *only* used when writing Sanskrit words containing
KSSA in Tibetan script.
I had thought that the argument for including KSSA as a seperate
character in the Tibetan block (rather than only having U+0F40 and
U+0FB5) was originally for compatibility / cross mapping with
Devanagari and other Indic scripts.
- Chris
