Christopher John Fynn wrote: > 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.
Which is not a valid reason either, considering that U+0F69 and the combination U+0F40 U+0FB5 are *canonically* equivalent. This means that normalizing applications are not allowed to treat U+0F69 differntly from U+0F40 U+0FB5, including displaying them differently or mapping them differently to something else. _ Marco
