Please check my responses below:
----- Original Message -----
From: Apurva Joshi <apurvaj@microsoft.com>
To: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 6:49 AM
Subject: RE: Encoding Bengali Vowel forms (again)
> [apurva:] Indeed. The fact that Ya_phola [aka zophola, jophola ] exists in
> the 'Byanjonbarna' and not in the 'Swarabarna' is a reason to think about
> considering it as a newer 'specific addition' to the Bangla block. Since
it
> is not just a matter of character 'order' in predetermined equivalent
> sequences, but is at the basic level of defining the 'contents' of the
> sequence itself.
[Dhruba:] What do you think of considering the zophola as glide/vocoid as
specified by linguists(i think) ? That is why it is better of to be called
a glide. And I think the question was of including the A_zophola_aa in the
block and not of the zophola. Coming to this character, it could be
included in the Bengali block as a specific symbol[and not a vowel] (is this
possible ?) since it has creeped into the Bengali press but has not been
standardised as such in Bengal . If this is introduced as a vowel however
then a corresponding Ya_phala_aa matra(09CD 09AF 09BE) would have to be
introduced too. This would create major confusion again as some people would
use only Ya_phala and some people would use Ya_phala_aa for writing words.
> >From my limited understanding, the option of including it at the level of
a
> glyph in a font, transfers the responsibility of its implementation into
the
> hands of a shaping engine that handles Indic. While this means flexibility
> at the shaping engine level, it also means each such shaping engine can do
> so, using totally different rules. This I guess could also imply different
> backing store contents [character sequences] for each. Thus opening
> documents originally shaped by shapingEngineX, that uses shapingEngineY
> [although both might be based on Unicode], has good chances of resulting
in
> undesired [or worse, mangled] results. Please correct me if I'm wrong
here,
> or if there is merit in transferring such responsibility to a shaping
> engine.
[Dhruba:] Absolutely correct! I see the light now :-) So there needs to be
discussion on the fact whether A_zophola_aa could exist as a specific symbol
or be mentioned as an encoding rule which rendering engines would be
required to follow.
Where do you think the solution lies ?
Dhrubajyoti
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT