On 05/23/2012 06:48 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: > I think what Ed is saying is that Tai Tham follows a similar model to Myanmar > rather than a pure Indic model, where you have a distinct medials vs subjoined > consonants wher subjoined consonants require a virama and medials don't
I see. Thanks for the clarification. > Par of a fundamental change between myanar in unicode 4.1 and 5.1 Good to know. I'll give HB a run on my Myanmar corpus and see if I can fix a few high-impact issues. > Will look at my sources to confirm for Tai Tham. Thanks, b > A. > > On Thursday, 24 May 2012, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Thep, >> >> Humm, the message from Ed hat you are replying to never made it to me or to >> the list. Replies inline. >> >> >> On 05/23/2012 06:53 AM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote: >>> Hi, Ed, Behdad, >>> >>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Ed Trager <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> On 05/18/2012 04:02 PM, Ed Trager wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In Tai Tham, U+1A6E VOWEL SIGN E needs to be shifted all the way to >>>>>> the left so that the final visual appearance would be: >>>>> >>>>> Are you sure? Without U+1A60 TAI THAM SIGN SAKOT before the subjoined >>>>> consonant? Reading Unicode suggests that you need that sign betwee PA > and LA. >>>> >>>> For most subjoined consonants, yes, that's true. But note in >>>> particular that U+1A56 MEDIAL LA and U+1A57 MEDIAL LA TANG LAI were >>>> encoded separately. In the case of these two "LA" signs, I believe >>>> there are two reasons justifying the separate encoding: >>>> >>>> (1) These are variant forms of the same subjoined letter LA: >>>> apparently, there is no other good way to do it other than encoding >>>> both. >>>> >>>> (2) Both of these LA signs can be part of triple consonant clusters, >>>> i.e. "KLW" appears in the common word Thai / Tai word for banana, >>>> กล้วย, "klwy" . In Tai Tham, both the L and the W appear as >>>> below-base stacked forms (and actually the "y" is also a subjoined >>>> form, but it's kind of hanging off the right side of the whole stack). >> >> I'm not questioning the separate encoding. I don't care :-). What I'm >> saying >> is that you need a SAKOT before them for them to be considered part of the >> same syllable according to the Indic OpenType spec and my implementation. >> Now, if you think Unicode intended these to subjoin without a SAKOT, then I >> like you to point me to documentation about that. >> >> If that is the case, we would need changes to the Indic machine. Not >> impossible, but I first want to make sure that it is indeed the case. >> >> behdad >> >> >> >>>> There are some other separately-encoded subjoining consonant signs: >>>> U+1A5B, U+1A5C, U+1A5D, U+1A5E. >>> >>> Please also count U+1A55 (MEDIAL RA) in the rule, although it's not a >>> subjoined form. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -Thep. >> _______________________________________________ >> HarfBuzz mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz >> > > -- > Andrew Cunningham > Senior Project Manager, Research and Development > Vicnet > State Library of Victoria > Australia > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
