From: Richard Wordingham (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 19 2005 - 23:28:27 CDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> This Annex seems to be making quite a number of rather
> baseless claims about "Unicode Tamil-New".
> Among them:
> "Its simplicity leads to enormous savings. The space
> requirement for a Unicode Tamil-New is about 40% less
> than what is required in the current Unicode Tamil.
This rather presupposes that they will get space in the BMP. If they don't,
pure text will need 20% more storage in UTF-16 (thought there's still a 20%
saving in UTF-8).
I can understand the gripes about 'level-2' v. 'level-1' implementation,
though. I find it distinctly irritating that the newly added Tamil
consonant SHA U+0BB6 won't combine with vowels in Window XP, and seems
unlikely to unless one buys otherwise unneeded word processing packages.
How well, though, would the new scheme work if it were allocated non-PUA
codes in the SMP?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 19 2005 - 23:33:02 CDT