Re: Tamil sha (U+0BB6) - deprecate it?

From: N. Ganesan (
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 13:40:11 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Tamil sha (U+0BB6) - deprecate it?"

    James Kass wrote:
    >The proposal to add U+0BB6 to Unicode
    >originated from INFITT. Proposal to add Tamil SHA:

    >Some comments on proposal to add Tamil SHA:

    Thanks for giving the links on 0bb6 in Tamil.
    Tamil script actively uses U+0BB6.
    The details are in the first mesage of this
    list for the month of May, 2005 as well.
    >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.

    Tamil dictionaries define Sri conjunct as using U+0BB6.
    Madras Tamil lexicon (in 7 volumes - published by
    Madras University, equivalent of Oxford English dictionary)
    records that. So, International bodies for computer text
    encoding merely follow and implement the info from
    Tamil sources.

    Sri conjunct <U+0BB6, U+0BCD, U+0BB0, U+0BC0> ,
    and all Indic scripts these equivalents
    (eg. Last month or so, M. Davis gave a transliterator
    URL, I tried Devanagari Sri and in Tamil
    it becomes <U+0BB6, U+0BCD, U+0BB0, U+0BC0>.
    Uniscribe should be updated to Tamil Sri thus.

    The WG02 document (n2618) clearly specifies why
    sha (0bb6) is needed for Tamil:
    "ISCII included letters for {Ss}, {s}, {h}
    but left out the letter for {sh} in Tamil. This
    resulted in a major deficiency in the code
    - for instance, there is no way of representing
    the backing string of a very important 'akshara' in
    the language viz., {SRI}".

    N. Ganesan

    >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.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 13:41:22 CDT