From: Anirban Mitra (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 01:23:41 EST
>> Let's consider the ra+virama+ya case. In the mostpart the
>> displayed as ya+reph. This obviously seems to be an
>> instance of ambiguous interpretation because ra+virama+ya could
>> ra+ja-phalaa. ya+reph and ra+ja-phalaa are used in different
words and have
>> different meaning.
>I'm responding to this message in order to isolate this point. If
>the current model of YA PHALAA is inadequate.
>ZWJ can be used to produce the required differentiation.
-- >Michael Everson If exeption can be done for ra why not vowels? why to use virama to function as zwj when we could have used zwj itself? i.e. virama+ya to be encoded as yaphala. After vowels however zwj+ya is best to be encoded as yaphalaa after vowels.(in fact microsoft's unicode processor uniscribe does exactly that). But unicode people's stubborness to use virama as a joining mark, no matter it follows vowel or consonant, is inexplainable. aa-virama-ya forming ba-yaphalaa is quiet understandable and intuitive to me, but a-virama-ya is not. Another ISCII considers Devanagari YA to be equivalent to Bengali YYA, so tranferring a old bengali iscii to unicode faces a serious problem whether to convert yya-viramaa to yaphalaa also. ===== Dr Anirban Mitra Email: email@example.com Web Page http://www.geocities.com/mitra_anirban ________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 08 2003 - 02:01:54 EST