On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:05:49 -0700 Markus Scherer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Wordingham, Richard (UK) < > [email protected]> wrote: > The context is a discussion of whether it is necessary in the UCA > (collation) spec to support interleaved contractions: Contractions > a+b and x+y where NFD(abxy)=axby and ccc(x)<ccc(b). > The general question is whether any properly spelled text in any > language involves such "axby" sequences in the Unicode encoding model. > This Balti example appears relevant only if the Balti (or Tibetan) > encoding model in Unicode would add further pairs of combining marks > like <U+0F71, U+0F72>, without any intervening base letter (zero > combining class). The Balti example <U+0F41, U+0F71, U+0F72, U+0F39> 'KHHII', if valid, requires an interleaved contraction <U+0F41, U+0F39> (to give what was proposed as TIBETAN LETTER KHHA). Under the currently proposed scheme, the contraction of <U+0F71, U+0F72> would not occur, so, assuming Balti has the usual vowel order, it would sort before KHHI instead of after it. Richard.
