Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Compare for instance Kannada and Telugu which share a common origin in > the > > not > > so distant past - and are still very near identical - yet are > encoded in > > their own ranges. > > They do have distinct behaviours and rendering requirements. >
I may be wrong but aren't the different behaviours between these two scripts based on differences in the requirements of the (main) languages written in these scripts rather than substantial differences in the scripts themselves? If say the same Sanskrit text is written in both Telugu and Kannada scripts do these different behaviours apply? If Kannada and Telugu had been unified would there have been a problem making Uniscribe work for the needs of both the Kannada speaking and Telugu speaking communities? There are also differences in shaping and rendering when Devanagri is used to write Nepali and Hindi and differences in the preferred glyph forms. Perhaps more to the point of the current discussion, are there any distinct shaping behaviours and rendering requirements between Phoenician & Hebrew such as there are between Kannada and Telugu? At what point should distinct behaviours and rendering requirements qualify scripts with a common origin to be encoded separately? There are some differences in shaping behaviours different forms of Latin script and some pretty substantial differences in shaping behaviours between different forms of Tibetan script - yet different forms of Latin script and different forms of Tibetan script are not encoded separately (with the exception of 'phags pa). - Chris
