Re: Indic Devanagari Query

From: Christopher John Fynn (
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 05:41:47 EST

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: Indic Devanagari Query"

     Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 02:13 -0800 2003-01-29, Keyur Shroff wrote:
    > >I beg to differ with you on this point. Merely having some provision for
    > >composing a character doesn't mean that the character is not a candidate
    > >for inclusion as separate code point.
    > Yes, it does.
    > >India is a big country with millions of people geographically
    > >divided and speaking variety of languages. Sentiments are attached
    > >with cultures which may vary from one geographical area to another.
    > >So when one of the many languages falling under the same script
    > >dominate the entire encoding for the script, then other group of
    > >people may feel that their language has not been represented
    > >properly in the encoding.

    > A lot of these "feelings" are simply WRONG, and that has to be faced.
    > The syllable KSSA may be treated as a single letter, but this does
    > not change the fact that it is a ligature of KA and SSA and that it
    > can be represented in Unicode by a string of three characters.

    Of course an anomoly is that KSSA *is* encoded in the Tibetan
    block at U+0F69. In normal Tibetan or Dzongkha words KSSA
    U+0F69 (or the combination U+0F40 U+0FB5) does not occur
    - AFAIK it is *only* used when writing Sanskrit words containing
    KSSA in Tibetan script.

    I had thought that the argument for including KSSA as a seperate
    character in the Tibetan block (rather than only having U+0F40 and
    U+0FB5) was originally for compatibility / cross mapping with
    Devanagari and other Indic scripts.

    - Chris

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 12:34:18 EST