Re: Offlist: complex rendering

Tom,

Thank you for taking an interest in this matter.

You said,

Mapping multiple scripts to Latin-1 codepoints is contrary to the most
basic principles of Unicode and represents a backwards technology leap of
20 years or more.

Well, do you otherwise agree that the transliteration is good? It can be
typed easily, and certainly not like the Unicode Indic transliteration that
is only good for Aliens to discover some day.

Unicode has a principle about shapes assigned to characters. It is the
opposite of what you said. At the time I started this project Unicode
version 2 specifically said that it does not define shapes. That is the
reason I tried it.

Think of it as a help for the person that types. I tested it on real
people. They are unaware that the underlying codes are that of Latin. They
are surprised and elated.

So, if you are so averse to changing the shapes of Latin-1, what would you
say about Fraktur and Gaelic that the standard specifically said are based
on Latin-1 but have different shapes?

You said,
It doesn't seem realistic to me that it could ever see acceptance, and I'm
a bit surprised that you continue to devote your talents to promoting it.
Is there some reason you consider it to be promising nonetheless?

(Thank you for calling me talented. I am not).

It depends on whose acceptance you are talking about. You'll understand if
you are a Singhalese, Tom. The leap 20 years back is what we need. Unicode
parked us in a cul de sac. BTW, I haven't even started to promote it. I
want the IT community to say this works, as it really does.

Think why people Anglicize in this very popular web site:
www.sinhalaya.com
There are many such. (try elakiri.com)

You will see some Unicode Sinhala, but most posts are written using hack
fonts and made into graphics to post. The Lankan government is so worried
that they have launched a program to teach English to everyone perhaps
seeing the demise of Singhala due to digital creep. (Wisdom of
politicians!).

Also look at the web site of the IT agency of the government:
http://www.icta.lk/
How much prominence did they give the language of the 70%?

The bureaucrats are giving themselves medals. (See the pictures). They are
making laws forcing the government employees to use Unicode Singhala,
because they are reluctant. It's a Third World country. The literacy rate
is 90% plus, not a little India. But the people are docile. They depend on
the government to tell what todo. The bureaucracy in return depends on the
West to tell them what is right. The technocrats call themselves යුනිකේත
(Love UNI!)

Yes, Tom, I do have a very good reason. I know it because I am a
Singhalese. It is *practical* and being accepted and commended by everyone
that I showed it to. If English, German, Spanish, Icelandic, Danish etc.
use Latin-1, and if Singhala *can* perfectly map to Latin-1, why shouldn't
it? That is called transliteration. Recall that English fully romanized
about year 600.

Singhala is a minority language that is scheduled to be executed, and
Unicode is unwittingly the reason.

Brahmi probably is Old Singhala. The oldest Brahmi was found in Shree
Langkaa (Sri Lanka) 2-3 centuries before it was seen in India. Some say
Singhalese founded the Mayans. (What a chauvinist!). So, let's give it a
boost before World Ends.

I need the support of Unicode, which is like World Government for
Laangkans. This is what I want Unicode to judge:

   - Is the transliteration practical?
   - Do I have a round trip conversion with precious Unicode Sinhala?

Help us, Tom.

This message is getting too long.I can list pros and cons of Dual-script
Singhala and Unicode Sinhala to convince any techie why we should forget
Unicode Sinhala.

Let me end with a quote from SICP
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
Educators, generals, dieticians, psychologists, and parents program.
Armies, students, and some societies are programmed. An assault on large
problems employs a succession of programs, most of which spring into
existence en route. These programs are rife with issues that appear to be
particular to the problem at hand. To appreciate programming as an
intellectual activity in its own right you must turn to computer
programming; you must read and write computer programs -- many of them. It
doesn't matter much what the programs are about or what applications they
serve. What does matter is how well they perform and how smoothly they fit
with other programs in the creation of still greater programs. *The
programmer must seek both perfection of part and adequacy of collection.*

Do we want to be programmed or be programmers? Is the collection adequate?

Best regards,

JC

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Tom Gewecke <tom_at_bluesky.org> wrote:

> naenaguru wrote:
>
> Map sounds to QWERTY extended key layouts adding non-English letters ->
> Result: strict, rule based alphabet extending from ASCII to Latin-1 ->
>
>
> Mapping multiple scripts to Latin-1 codepoints is contrary to the most
> basic principles of Unicode and represents a backwards technology leap of
> 20 years or more. It doesn't seem realistic to me that it could ever see
> acceptance, and I'm a bit surprised that you continue to devote your
> talents to promoting it. Is there some reason you consider it to be
> promising nonetheless?
>
Received on Fri Jun 15 2012 - 01:51:26 CDT