Shriramana It is interesting to compare:
http://skia.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz-indic.cpp http://skia.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz-khmer.c http://skia.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz-tibetan.c In practice, the rendering of Tibetan appears to be far less complex than that of Khmer (with its coeng joiner) or that of Indic. Where you do get a some complexity in Tibetan script is in collation: http://developer.mimer.com/charts/tibetan.htm http://developer.mimer.com/charts/dzongkha.htm This would have been somewhat simpler it characters like those I mentioned earlier had been dropped. Perhaps some of the other Tibetan encoding proposals might have made Tibetan collation a little simpler - but I think this would have been at the cost of all kinds of added complexity in rendering and input methods. - Chris
