Re: Noticed improvement in the Code chart link

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:54:18 +0100

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:47:49 +0530 (IST)
delex r <> wrote:

> On 2011.09.27 22:56, delex r wrote:
> >I hope a proposal will come in near future to include an additional
> >letter 'Khya' which is as per our (Assamese)script is not considered
> >as a biconsonantal conjunct as in Devanagari 0915 (Hex) + 0937
> >(Hex)and instead given a full fledged letter status.( I checked in
> >my primary school alphabet book).

It's quite common to consider K.SSA and J.NYA as independent consonants
in Indic scripts. Such feelings did not sway Unicode, nor, I might
add, the developers of ISCII. Similarly, I have Northern Thai booklets
teaching the Tai Tham script that present a whole swathe of Tai Tham
conjuncts with initial element U+1A49 TAI THEM LETTER HA as
independent letters, and the reformed form of the script for Tai Lue
(which otherwise mostly has no use for the subscript consonants) encodes
them as such. However, no one suggested encoding them as indecomposable
consonants for the Tai Tham script.

> "Complelling case"....... Pls let us be explained more about it ?
> Also pls inform how a " compelling case" may be made to Unicode to
> make them update the linked pdf file by replacing "BENGALI" s by
> "ASSAMESE"s at all appropriate places.

What might be more appropriate is to replace 'Bengali-specific
additions' by 'script-specific additions'. Judging by the presence of
'Gurmukhi-specific additions' in the Gurmukhi block, 'Bengali-specific
additions' meant something like 'not ISCII' or 'absent from most
ISCII-derived encodings'. These subheadings are, as far as I am aware,
non-normative and an editorial matter.

Received on Sun Oct 02 2011 - 14:03:45 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Oct 02 2011 - 14:03:49 CDT