Re: Tamil Collation vs Transliteration/Transcription Enc

From: James Kass (
Date: Sat Jun 25 2005 - 01:23:36 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Tamil Collation vs Transliteration/Transcription Enc"

    Richard Wordingham wrote,

    > > Unicode encoded 0bb6 without proper consultation, again offending the
    > > language in a serious way.
    > Tough. It was still being used.

    Suppose international bodies responsible for computer text encoding
    told you that a certain string in their code would represent a segment
    of the text of your own name in your own script.

    Then suppose the international bodies added a new character to the
    standard, and told you that a new string in their code should represent
    that portion of your own name in your own script. And, that the
    strings already existing would now be invalid.

    That's exactly what happened to Srivas with the addition of U+0BB6.

    The issue is not the addition of the SHA letter itself as much as it is
    the conjunct encoding rules which were changed. The impact of this
    change on existing data may have been considered by the authorities
    prior to the official change, but considering an impact doesn't lessen it.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 25 2005 - 10:41:45 CDT