From: Sinnathurai Srivas (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 02:47:34 CDT
I'll arrange for uploading some images.
Yes, there is X form and ksh form.
The ksh form can be treated as conjunct equivalant, similar to PR, TR etc
are treated conjunct equivalant.
Engineers can find work around to all pitfalls found in Unicode. But what
should be done is eliminate pitfalls in Unicode, that is the duty of UC.
In English there is no ZWJ or ZWNJ. That is a duty performed well by UC.
Infact VV is an example of discrimination by UC. If VV can be made single
character, why X is not made single character in Tamil. Is it to make Tamil
a nonTamil line tower?
There is no conjunct in Tamil. Why UC and Microsoft insisting on changing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 08 September 2007 06:49
Subject: Re: [indic] Re: Feedback on PR-104
> Peter Constable said on Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:24:58AM -0700,:
> > The mail I received is illegible: I cannot tall at all who is
> > saying what.
> I think the subject can be ignored till somebody comes up with images
> of a written representation.
> All I that I can make out right now is that there are two
> representations of the Tamil ksh conjunct in the _English_ script and
> both such representations deserve separate treatment in _Tamil_
> Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 08 2007 - 02:49:34 CDT