From: Deepayan Sarkar (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 14:53:34 CST
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 12:21, Gautam Sengupta wrote:
> Is there any reason (apart from trying to be
> ISCII-conformant) why the Bangla word /ki/ "what"
> cannot be encoded as [KA][ZWJ][I]? Do we really need
> combining forms of vowels to encode Indian scripts?
I don't know what the original motivations were, but one thing about the
current (ISCII-based) encoding scheme that appeals to me is that on average
it requires fewer characters than other more natural schemes. Bangla has a
high percentage of 'vowel signs', each of which would require two characters
in your scheme as opposed to one in the current one.
> Also, why not use [CONS][ZWJ][CONS] instead of
> [CONS][VIRAMA][CONS]? One could then use [VIRAMA] only
> where it is explicit/visible.
But this would not reflect the fact that the *glyph* [CONS][ZWJ][CONS] is
actually the same thing as the *sequence of characters* [CONS][VIRAMA][CONS],
i.e., [CONS][VIRAMA][ZWNJ][CONS] is also a perfectly legitimate
representation. This latter decision is one that should be taken (normally)
by the rendering mechanism (loosely speaking, the font), not the author.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST