Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 14:51:35 CST

At 20:41 +0200 2003-10-24, Peter Jacobi wrote:

>This makes also a lot of sense for non-speakers of Tamil, because it
>correctly correlates the number of 'N's to the number of loops in
>the glyph.

The transliteration in the naming convention is unrelated to this. In
any case names cannot be changed.

>Is it just because -for stability- character names are not allowed
>to change even if incorrect? Or is it an oversight?

It isn't incorrect. It doesn't conform to your analysis.

Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST