Casefolding Sigma (was: Re: IDNAbis PreprocessingDraft)

Michael Everson everson at
Fri Jan 25 12:03:28 CET 2008

At 19:08 +0900 2008-01-25, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Canadian Syllabics "Final" seem to be more like some modifier characters.

Martin! "Seem"? I really don't believe that we 
should be proceeding with this kind of 
lackadaisical linguistic naïveté.

Canadian Syllabics finals are letters. They are 
prototypically final consonants and often marks 
of labialization. One *might* call the 
labializers "modifiers" but one certainly cannot 
do so for the finals. Your analysis was based on 
an opinion of the superficial glyph appearance, 
not on the actual use of the characters.

>Two of them even don't have any glyph printed in 
>Unicode 5.0, and there is no explanation in the 
>text, so this is difficult to say with certainty.

What characters do not have glyphs in Unicode 5.0?

>For New Tai Lue, these are in some sense 
>composed forms of a base consonant and a virama. 
>If they are dealt with in a similar way to other 
>Indic scripts, I guess these variants should be 

Have you read the proposals to encode New Tai 
Lue, which describes the script and its 
characters? There is no Virama encoded for New 
Tai Lue.

My goodness, this activity can be disheartening.
Michael Everson *

More information about the Idna-update mailing list