From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2006 - 04:24:13 CST
On Sunday, April 2nd, 2006 08:00Z, James Kass wrote:
> ... but the user community insists that the same encoded binary
> strings be displayed in either traditional or reformed style based
> upon the user's font choice.
... and, as I understand Dr Whistler, they loose that one regarding AU.
Assuming there were something to loose.
In the particular case of AU, the move from the two-part vowel to the
right-part-only sign seems to be much more older than the reform, even the
first attempt at it in 1968.
There were an indeep thread this about in early May 2005, on the indic list
(Malayalam ൌ vowel sign U+0D4C).
Also, AU is not a common codepoints (much less common that /cillus/, for
>> How did you (and some others) manage to miss the rather clear
>> statements (in several places) that 0D4C is a **TWO-PART** vowel??
> Explanatory text about U+0D4C specifically should be added to the
Done in the note, which seems to me widely more referred to than the text of
the book. And this does not preclude a ad-hox comment to be inserted in the
5.0 book (which I am pretty sure will be done, particularly after this
lengthly thread. ;-))
> Since the standard currently offers no direction with
> respect to U+0D4C and the orthographic reform, people speculate
> and form divergent opinions as to proper implementation methods.
Yes. Present (4.1) state of affairs is sad, we all agree.
And the aborted tentative of resolution of the /cillus/ last year is making
people even more angry, since it seems they lost the 5.0 milestone.
> The user community apparently considers that U+0D4C is only a
> two-part vowel sign in the traditional orthography.
No, this is not so; there is a significant proportion of printed material in
old orthography but with single glyph AU (although nobody did an extensive
research to explain the relative proportion of both spellings.) And this is
why this particular problem can have a different solution from the one of
>>> The user community, far as I can tell, shuns the notion that U+0D4C
>>> and U+0D57 are equivalent.
Yes (the users do).
This also may explains why U+0D4C is used, by the way. The user community is
exposed to tools like CDAC's, which shows only the single right-standing
glyph; but these tools are otherwise based on the ISCII standard (which
makes no provision to encode the different glyphs), so AU is uniformly
encoded across all scripts as E6; and I guess the straightforward conversion
tables will turns this into U+0D4C when in Malayalam context. This is a
common mistake to do (for example, I believe a recent version of Windows,
like 5.2.3790.1830, or perhaps even betas of 6.0, will still translate ISCII
E6 into U+0D4C... not checked thoroughly.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 03 2006 - 04:58:36 CST