Hi Donald,
There's no hidden set being used. Both "DU"s were written only with what
is in SLS1134, specifically <0x0dd4> as the paapilla.
I've tried to answer your question about the rendering of paapilla being
different in my previous email:
http://www.lug.lk/lurker/message/20050304.044203.838ae605.en.html
Regards,
Harshula
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 00:04 +0600, donald gaminitillake wrote:
> If you check carefully the bottom part of the both "DU' one is shorter
> other is longer
>
> If you use the same 0dd4 how can this be.
>
> This clearly shows that you use another hidden set to image the "DU"
>
> therefore SLSI 1134 cannot stand alone without supporting sets
>
> Unconditonally you got to amend the SLSI 1134.
>
> Donald
_______________________________________________
Sinhala mailing list
Sinhala@???
https://secure.linux.lk/mailman/listinfo/sinhala
(text/plain)