From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 10 2006 - 03:04:14 CDT
We are now just a few weeks before the Unicode conference where Unicode 5.0 may be announced and released. But the bugs I reported are still not reflected in any file found in the UCD. Was an agreement reached about these canonical mappings, or does it require a final vote that will occur only at this conference?
I've seen new files added in the UCD BETA and other information added, but not those ones about Balinese vowels with tedung.
I understand that the case of 1B0E is a bit more complex to handle than the others, but even the vowels listed below are still not corrected. So I want to be sure that something that was reported and generally agreed here, will not be forgotten in the final release.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Verdy" <email@example.com>
To: "Peter Constable" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Michael Everson" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Unicode 5.0 decompositions of Balinese vowel signs with tedung
> From: "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> At 21:07 -0700 2006-04-13, Peter Constable wrote:
>>>I've checked the UnicodeData.txt properties for Balinese, and the
>>>decomposition mappings are the only ones with errors. Here are the
>>>corrected entries for the affected characters:
>>>1B06;BALINESE LETTER AKARA TEDUNG;Lo;0;L;1B05 1B35;;;;N;;aa;;;
>>>1B08;BALINESE LETTER IKARA TEDUNG;Lo;0;L;1B07 1B35;;;;N;;ii;;;
>>>1B0A;BALINESE LETTER UKARA TEDUNG;Lo;0;L;1B09 1B35;;;;N;;uu;;;
>>>1B0C;BALINESE LETTER RA REPA TEDUNG;Lo;0;L;1B0B 1B35;;;;N;;vocalic rr;;;
>>>1B12;BALINESE LETTER OKARA TEDUNG;Lo;0;L;1B11 1B35;;;;N;;au;;;
>>>1B3B;BALINESE VOWEL SIGN RA REPA TEDUNG;Mc;0;L;1B3A 1B35;;;;N;;vocalic rr;;;
>>>1B3D;BALINESE VOWEL SIGN LA LENGA TEDUNG;Mc;0;L;1B3C 1B35;;;;N;;vocalic ll;;;
>>>1B40;BALINESE VOWEL SIGN TALING TEDUNG;Mc;0;L;1B3E 1B35;;;;N;;o;;;
>>>1B41;BALINESE VOWEL SIGN TALING REPA TEDUNG;Mc;0;L;1B3F 1B35;;;;N;;au;;;
>>>1B43;BALINESE VOWEL SIGN PEPET TEDUNG;Mc;0;L;1B42 1B35;;;;N;;;;;
>> Well, the actual shape of 1B0E would imply 1B0D + 1B39, wouldn't it?
>> See the bottom of page 2 of N2908.
> Does this mean that the suggested normative name (BALINESE LETTER LA LENGA TEDUNG) is wrong or misleading and that it should be BALINESE LETTER LA LENGA SUKU ILUT? Given that SUKU ILUT is also a sign for a long vowel, may be TEDUNG suggests only the "long" form which is based on the short SUKU (u) instead of the implied vowel (a).
> It's true that the ligatured glyph on the right has two arcs opened on the left instead of just one for TEDUNG, but 1B39 (SUKU ILUT) does not really have two such arcs (the latter has a single wavy curve forming two aligned arcs with the top arc open to the right, and the bottom arc open to the left).
> Anyway, I'm sure that the normative names are already decided and they probably come from local usage in Balinese. I am not suggesting to change the name, just to check whever this independant long vowel (1B03) is a (quite evident) contextual ligature (recommanded in normal use, but possibly optional in some graphic or artistic designs) of the independant short vowel letter 1B0D BALINESE LETTER LA LENGA with another vowel sign, like are the other composite independant long vowels above (1B06, 1B08, 1B0A, 1B0C).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 10 2006 - 03:05:49 CDT