On Fri, > > Andrew C. West scripsit: > > > For example, the excellent description of the Tocharian script > > (surely the worst made-up name for a dead script ever) at > > http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/toch/tochbr.htm could > > be the basis of a proposal for this important Brahmic script. There is > > a considerable body of Tocharian material, and it would be much easier > > to encode this material using a dedicated Tocharian block than using > > a generic Brahmic encoding model. > > I don't understand. Are you proposing this be implemented as a full > syllabary, Cherokee/Ethiopic style, rather than using the usual > apparatus of consonants, independent vowels, and vowel marks (which in > this case ligate fully with the consonants)?
No, not at all. The charts may show consonant-vowel syllables, but that does not mean that I believe that they should be proposed to be encoded as syllables. What I was saying was that all the glyphs needed for a proposal are nicely laid out here, not that there is necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between these glyphs and Unicode characters. Andrew
