(I can't read Bengali, so I'm not entirely sure what the johphola is, but I'm trying to relate this to Devanagari -- if my analogy is mistaken or if you don't know Devanagari, let me know)
I don't see anything discriminatory about not giving glyphs their own codepoints. Devanagari has tons of glyphs which are logically broken up into consonants, modifying diacritics, and bare vowels. Do we really need separate codepoints for these[1] when they can be made by combinations of these[2]?
I mentioned this as a reply to another comment, but it's only a Unicode problem if:
- There is no way to write the glyph as a combination of code points
- There is a way to write the glyph as a combination of code points, but the same combination could mean something else (not counting any rendering mistakes, the question is about if Unicode defines it to mean something else)
If it's hard to input, that's the fault of the input method. If it doesn't combine right, it's the fault of the font.
I don't see anything discriminatory about not giving glyphs their own codepoints. Devanagari has tons of glyphs which are logically broken up into consonants, modifying diacritics, and bare vowels. Do we really need separate codepoints for these[1] when they can be made by combinations of these[2]?
I mentioned this as a reply to another comment, but it's only a Unicode problem if:
- There is no way to write the glyph as a combination of code points - There is a way to write the glyph as a combination of code points, but the same combination could mean something else (not counting any rendering mistakes, the question is about if Unicode defines it to mean something else)
If it's hard to input, that's the fault of the input method. If it doesn't combine right, it's the fault of the font.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Biconsonantal_conjun... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari_%28Unicode_block%29