From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 17:23:47 CST
At 23:31 +0100 2005-04-01, Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
>>No, it is not. It is a unique string of characters that identifies
>>that code position.
>Yes it is technically wrong and misleads developers.
Saying so does not make an argument about either technical error or
>>No, it isn't. Though it is probably derived from the Tamil Grantha visarga.
>It is chicken or egg.
>It is phonemis only or phonemic based.
Tamil Grantha had a visarga with two circles. Visarga represents a
kind of aspiration. Tamil innovated a three circled Aytham from this,
as is obvious from both its shape and its usage. That it is not used
identically to original visarga is due to the fact that the character
was being used in new ways. Yes, this is part of the genius of the
people who developed the early Tamil script from its Tamil Grantha
This also makes clear why the "false identification" of Aytham with
Visarga was made, years ago. As has been pointed out to you, the
appropriate data files have been changed so that the behaviour of the
character is as you expect it.
The name cannot be changed.
No matter what you say, the name cannot be changed.
No matter how right you may be, the name cannot be changed.
>I think you understand minorty as something else. I mean, people
>without power to rule themself with dignity. ruled by others is
>minority to me. Constantly under legitrative threats and actions to
>impose others will onto minorities as minority.
The Universal Character Set allows Tamil people to process and
interchange data in their language. Nothing could be more respectful
and supportive of Tamil culture.
You are "insulted" and "wounded" by something which has no
significance, and which cannot be changed. Please get over your
difficulty. If you don't, you will just suffer needlessly.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 17:24:40 CST