> You seem to under-estimate the requirements for compatibility with ISCII and
> at the same time over-estimate our ability to break new ground. The need for
> compatibility in translating existing data from ISCII to Unicode and back in
> as straightforward a manner as possible (i.e., one-to-one linear mapping) is
> extremely high.
I admit, I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of Unicode. Further,
to defend Unicode, outside of CDAC's GIST group that have established a
glyph set for their ISFOC fonts, there isnt much for Unicode to work
What I would like is for some such discussion to at least start
We may have missed the bus with Unicode, but perhaps there is value in
specifying a more elaborate encoding scheme for Devanagari on its own.
> If you can provide overwhelming evidence that these forms do represent graphemic
> distinctions (as opposed to merely allographic), then it is possible that your
> desires could be met. In the mean time, accept what is there as a given.
Is this standard procedure .. shoving alphabet soup at an outsider who
kicks up dust?!
> Glenn Adams
-- Sandeep Sibal Phone: (908) 949-6277 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org WWW: http://weed.arch.com.inter.net/~sibal/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT