From: Mijan (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 11:26:05 EST
Quoting Kent Karlsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > I understand that unicode is supposed to represent the
> > language, not the way it is written.
> No, Unicode is supposed to be able to represent the written
> form. (Of course.)
Yes, I was wrong! I think I wanted to say something like, "Unicode is supposed
to be able to represent the written language with logicaly equivalent code
(Because the argument is, what is logicaly equivalent to ya-phalaa)
> > Let's consider the ra+virama+ya case. In the mostpart the
> > ra+virama+ya is
> > displayed as ya+reph. This obviously seems to be an
> > instance of ambiguous interpretation because ra+virama+ya
> > could also represents
> > ra+ja-phalaa. ya+reph and ra+ja-phalaa are used in different
> > words and have
> > different meaning.
> > Form this you see that ja-phalaa is not equivalent to
> > virama-ya and is better
> > as a separate letter in Unicode. We always thought of
> > ya-phalaa as separate
> > anyway.
> > > >3. There are no other cases of a Vowel+Virama combination in the
> > > >Unicode encoding model.
> > >
> > > Yes, there are. Khmer.
> > I do not understand Khmer but I see that it does not use the
> > same 'encoding
> > model'. Please look, you will see that you were wrong to use
> > Khmer as an example.
> Khmer uses the same encoding model as most other Indic scripts,
> except for one point: the "reph" is represented via a combining
> character (which also means that it does not come in "logical order"
> in the text representation), so the ambiguity you refer to does
> not exist for Khmer. Further, Khmer could have been represented
> in a "Tibetan-like" encoding model (but isn't). Further, IIRC,
> independent vowels can both be subscripted (before virama/coeng)
> and be subscripts (after virama/coeng) in Khmer. The latter is
> orthographically different from using dependent vowels.
> /kent k
This mail sent through http://www.bangladesh.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 05 2003 - 12:09:04 EST