Is the EWTS '_' to be represented as U+0020, or is it a wider space?
Does TMW9.42, Dza, map to U+0F5F,U+0F39?
Does TMW6.60, r+y, map to U+0F62,U+0FBB or to U+0F6A,U+0FBB? (Likewise with r+w, TMW6.61, TMW6.62, etc.)
Is U+0F7E a bindu? What Unicode does TMW7.96 map to, for example? What does TMW7.91 map to?
Should TMW8.97 and TMW8.98 map to swastiskas elsewhere in Unicode? If so, which codepoints? Likewise with TMW9.60, a Chinese character.
Does TMW7.68 map to U+0F39?
Does TMW7.74, the ITHI secret sign, have a Unicode mapping? f68,fa0,f80,f72 comes close, but fa0 would be too large, wouldn't it?
What Unicode does TMW9.61 map to? Is it for sequences like f40,f7c,f60,f72? Or is it for f60,f72,f7c?
verified this extensively and have full confidence that these mappings
agree with Tony Duff's Tibetan! 5.1 documentation (except as described
below).
To get them, I had to disregard Tony Duff's tables for a few glyphs: the
characters with ordinal 32 and 45 (space and hyphen in Roman ASCII,
space and tsheg in Tibetan). For these glyphs, we must have mappings
from TibetanMachineSkt4.32 to something, etc., and those mappings were
not present. I've normalized the mapping for these glyphs, as it is arbitrary
because the same two glyphs just appear fifteen times each.
brace problem upon opening any RTF document.
The TMW_RTF_TO_THDL_WYLIE test baselines changed because
I fixed (a while ago) some inconsistencies between the EWTS standard and
Jskad.
Conversion of TibetanMachineWeb8.40, @#, to Wylie now works correctly.
Unfortunately, though, typing @# doesn't produce 8.40, it still produces
8.38 and 8.39, two glyphs.
