Re: Tamil C(S)ivamayam

From: Sarves K (iamsarves@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 07 2007 - 03:56:45 CST

  • Next message: Bala: "RE: Re: Tamil C(S)ivamayam"

    On 11/7/07, Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com> wrote:
    >
    > Bala (Sri Lanka) wrote:
    >
    > > The civamayam is very commonly used in Tamil text. In present days
    > > compare to day sign and Tamil number 2, the civamayam symbol used very
    > > frequently. This been used in start of books, almost 90% of the Tamil
    > > wedding cards and so on.
    > >
    > > But when I am looking at the shape I cannot see the difference between
    > > Tamil day sign and civamayam.
    >
    > Neither can I, though both are clearly different from the digit 2.
    >
    > > (1) Why there is no code point to the civamayam symbol in Unicode?
    > > Is that because of the same/similar glyph?
    >
    > Perhaps. Has anyone ever proposed encoding it separately? Is it
    > encoded separately in any other coded character encoding?
    >
    > > Or Tamils missed out to list to Unicode?
    >
    > I wouldn't recommend going down this path.
    >
    > > (2) Are we expected to use the 0BF3 Tamil Day sign for civamayam
    > > as well?
    >
    > In American English, the same coded character, U+002E, is used:
    >
    > * as a sentence terminator
    > * as a marker for certain abbreviations
    > * as a decimal separator
    > * as part of an ellipsis indicating continuation
    > * as a separator between parts of a URL or IP address
    > * as part of a "dotted leader" in a table of contents
    > * and probably for other purposes as well.
    >
    > If you wish to propose disunifying the civamayam symbol from U+0BF3, you
    > will probably need to explain how that situation differs from the U+002E
    > situation.
    >
    > --
    > Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
    > NEW E-MAIL --> dewell at roadrunner dot com
    > NEW URL --> http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
    > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
    > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
    >
    >
    >
    We can't compare U+002E and U+0BF3. Because, U+002E doesn't have any defined
    meaning it's an ambiguous character (
    http://unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-6.html). Therefore it can be used to
    represent anything.

    But if you take U+0BF3, it has a defined meaning (The Day sign).

    So I don't know whether it is good to use U+0BF3 for Civamayam?

    Thanks,

    Sarves (Sri Lanka)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 07 2007 - 03:59:24 CST