Re: Tamil Collation vs Transliteration/Transcription Enc Version2

From: Sinnathurai Srivas (sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 14:33:54 CDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Notification re UTR #36, Security Issues"

    Encoding Grantham or sanskrit is not a problem. Encoding transliteration is
    not a problem. The problem is encoding some thing as Tamil, or in code space
    reserved for tamil is the problem. It legitimises foreign languages as part
    of tamil. we love all languages, but we do not want other languages to
    change ours. We have a long history of resisting. This attept by Unicode is
    going to be the toughest one and Tamil would provbably loose and the die.
    Unicode will have such power in the future.

    Please think as it is something difficult to imagine for most of you. it has
    been a struggle. we can not stop if Unicode takes up this oppressive
    measure.

    Srivas

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "James Kass" <jameskass@att.net>
    To: "Sinnathurai Srivas" <sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk>; "David Starner"
    <prosfilaes@gmail.com>; "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
    Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:51 AM
    Subject: Re: Tamil Collation vs Transliteration/Transcription Enc Version2

    >
    > Sinnathurai Srivas wrote,
    >
    >> with the annotation "Indic transliteration".
    >>
    >> please send a pointer to the above
    >
    > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1E00.pdf
    >
    > In the text descriptions of the characters, there are several which
    > are annotated as being for Indic transcription.
    >
    > So, some of these characters were added to the Latin script ranges
    > even though they serve no other purpose than to transcribe Indic
    > languages/scripts. Perhaps as many as 95% of the people using
    > Latin-based writing systems would never need these transcription
    > characters, but they must be a part of the Universal Character Set
    > in order for the character set to be useful to Indologists and other
    > scholars. Minority needs must be met in order for the character
    > set to be universal.
    >
    > Note also that if these transcription characters were being proposed
    > now, they would be rejected because they would already be
    > representable in Unicode using combining diacritics.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > James Kass
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 14:35:07 CDT