>>> once the USE acknowledges that subjoined consonants may follow >>> vowels >> >> I expect to update the USE spec to address this soon. > > That seems welcome news. I still don't know what the problem with > supporting them has been.
USE wasn’t designed to allow such a syllable structure. Tai Tham’s being supported by USE is kind of an oversight. And although it’s appropriate to allow conjoined consonants to follow post-base-spacing vowel signs, it’s not really a trivial debate whether USE should allow conjoined consonants to non-post-base-spacing (ie, pre-base, above-base, and below-base) vowel signs—considering the ambiguity. Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io > On Feb 23, 2019, at 09:47, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 22:19:25 +0000 > Andrew Glass <andrew.gl...@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Richard for pointing out the issue with 0x1A7A >> I've looked into this and found an error in our tooling that has this >> mapped this to Halant. Based on the spec this should be VAbv. I've >> filed a bug. > > Thanks. Will the correction be rolled out to all Microsoft > Windows 10 customers at about the same time? I appreciate that > corporate customers may impose their own extra, internal delays - my > employer is still on Windows 7. > > In the meantime, I've updated my fonts (Da Lekh and Lamphun) to > correct the problem. However, such corrections run the risk of wrongly > deleting dotted circles that come from the backing store, and so are > not Unicode-compliant. The sooner I can remove the corrections, the > better. > >>> Where can I find the InSc properties of characters as overridden >>> for the USE of Windows? >> USE spec includes overrides to ISC and IPC: >> >> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/typography/script-development/use#overrides > > I had the impression there were more overrides than just those. > >>> once the USE acknowledges that subjoined consonants may follow >>> vowels >> I expect to update the USE spec to address this soon. > > That seems welcome news. I still don't know what the problem with > supporting them has been. > > Richard.
