From: Sinnathurai Srivas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 14:21:38 CDT
X and KSH Images can be found at
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sinnathurai Srivas" <email@example.com>
To: "Mahesh T. Pai" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Unicode Mailing List"
Sent: 08 September 2007 08:47
Subject: Re: [indic] Re: Feedback on PR-104
> 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" <email@example.com>
> To: "Unicode Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> 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 - 14:25:41 CDT