From: Anirban Mitra (mitra_anirban@yahoo.co.in)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 01:23:41 EST

  • Next message: Stephane Bortzmeyer: "RFC about IDN (domain names in Unicode) issued at last"

    Mijan scripsit:
    >> 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.
    >I'm responding to this message in order to isolate this point. If
    >correct, then
    >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: mitra_anirban@yahoo.co.in
    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