At 02:48 AM 1/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> 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?!
I gather you don't understand the distinction between graphemes and allographs?
In any case, I'm not trying to shove anything, except perhaps the snow that's
been accumulating on my back porch tonight...
I admit I've been a bit on the impatient side in my responses; however, I'm
basically responding in kind. You are essentially demanding that Unicode add
certain presentation forms that you consider to be essential. But you have
not offered anything more than your opinion to justify your demand. I'm putting
the onus on you to justify the need for these additions.
May I suggest that a more practical course would be for you to procure software
which supports the Unicode Devanagari encoding, or, if you like, write it yourself.
Once you have some experience with it, I'm sure many of us would be interested
to learn of your experiences, both good and bad.
Regards,
Glenn Adams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT