> > Another alternative which should be considered is use of a variation > > selector. > > None of the stakeholders on this issue has suggested that option, and I > suspect would reject it outright. There is no need to introduce a > variation selector; it would constitute yet another innovation in the > Indic model and would only lead to more confusion.
I agree with Peter (C, not K) here. The problem with an approach using variation selectors is twofold. As Peter Constable says, it would constitute another innovation for controlling forms in Indic processing, introducing the possibility for more confusion and mismatch in implementations. Even worse, however, is that variation selectors are intended to be ignorable without serious distortion of the impact on text interpretation. The typical cases of variation selection for math symbols just picks out a glyph preference between what are otherwise freely interchangeable forms. But in the case of khanda-ta we have a fixed orthographic form that is correct in some circumstances and incorrect in others, at least by all accounts I've been hearing. It is such situations that have typically used ZWJ and ZWNJ in Indic scripts to control required forms. Think of variation selection as being more appropriate when what we are talking about are for most purposes simply *free variants* for presentation -- either is equally correct to most people under most circumstances -- but where for particular presentation purposes someone wishes to choose out a precise variant and have indication of that usage reside in the text stream itself. (And even then, this is only used in extreme circumstances when failure to have such a mechanism available is causing a mapping problem or similar issue which threatens to become a character *encoding* problem for the committees.) --Ken
