From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Oct 16 2010 - 21:49:07 CDT
On 10/16/2010 10:38 AM, suzuki toshiya wrote:
> I've never heard any comments about the reservation
> of the codepoints to making the code chart structure
> similar among multiple script, no posive, no negative.
> So your comment is interesting. Could you tell me more
> about what kind of disadvantages you're thinking of?
The source for this arrangement is an Indian National Standard.
As chapter 9 of TUS states in the introduction:
"They are all encoded according to a common plan, so that comparable
are in the same order and relative location. This structural
arrangement, which facilitates
transliteration to some degree, is based on the Indian national
The important thing to remember is that when Unicode was first created,
it was seen as very important to mimic the layout of 8-bit character
sets for a given script - at least for those scripts that had fairly
well established standards in the 80s.
While this seems quaint now, it did make it easier for people to become
comfortable with Unicode - and to be able to tell quickly and reliably
whether important character sets were fully covered. Without that,
Unicode might never have established itself - as unbelievable as that
may sound to those who did not experience that transition period first hand.
> If Telugu users are using 7-bit or 8-bit encoding
> and they want to use more codepoints for unencoded
> characters, the disadvantage (the reduction of the
> available codepoint) is clear. But... you're talking
> about Unicode.
> Kiran Kumar Chava wrote (2010/10/17 2:06):
>> At the link, http://geek.chavakiran.com/archives/55 , I tried to
>> Telugu Unicode encoding and then I tried to do an out of box review
>> of this
>> encoding. Kindly let me know if I am missing something, mentioned as
>> in above article are really missing or not. Any other views...
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Kiran Kumar Chava
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 16 2010 - 21:54:52 CDT