Re: PRI #82

From: Antoine Leca (
Date: Wed Dec 14 2005 - 03:08:14 CST

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Re: Globalized lists"

    First, it seems that the Public Review Issue #82 has not been announced on
    the (small-traffic) Indic mailing list; I take the opportunity here to
    involve the readers of this list on this issue, since they are supposed to
    have the most useful inputs, and also and more specifically because they are
    probably the most affected people...

    If you want to answer on a specific Indic-script-related point, I believe
    the indic@ list is more appropriate (OTOH, if it is about procedure, please
    stay on unicode@); I follow both lists, and I understand Peter also does.

    On Tuesday, December 13th, 2005 20:22Z,
    Peter Constable wrote [using charset="windows-1255"]:

    > Re ordering of multiple vowels in Indic scripts, Uniscribe will allow
    > multiple vowel marks to appear on a single consonant -- one each in
    > left, above, below and right positions -- provided they are entered
    > in *that* order.

    Many thanks Peter to make your position clear, and furthermore to do it as
    soon as possible. By the way, I agree with the principles you stated.

    Having said that, I wonder what the future version of Uniscribe will display
    for the sequences कु॑ <U+0915 U+0941 U+0951> or ಕಾ॒ <U+0C95 U+0CBE U+0952>
    (I know the second is rendering faulty at the moment, but I hoped it will be
    resolved in the future version).
    Or is there code points that may look like "vowel marks" but are not
    considered as such by your engine?

    Now about procedures:
    Given that statement, made by a distinguished representative of a full
    member of the consortium, which furthermore attends personnally the sessions
    of the UTC, what is the point of the "Public Review Issue" asking to give
    "inputs on which sequence is preferable" ?

    Probably the issue to be reviewed turns to "We
    think/propose/envision/whatever to make the sequences in order L, A, B, R to
    be preferred over the equivalent (same rendering), and we seek your input
    about or against this proposal".


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 14 2005 - 03:24:55 CST