From: Steven R. Loomis <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:26 -0700

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michael Everson <>wrote:

> On 9 Jul 2012, at 14:32, Harshula wrote:
> > Are you complaining about the inclusion of traditional native Sinhala
> terms for the letters? e.g. From the code chart:
> Yes, I was complaining about that.
> > The transliterated form appears there too
> Yes, I know, but this isn't "better". For the needs of users of the
> standard (programmers, font makers, etc), the transliteration names KA KHA
> GA GHA NGA etc would have been perfectly sufficient. The only reason we
> don't use those as the names was a sort of "not-ISCII" nationalistic
> feeling on the part of the Sri Lankan NB back when the script was being
> encoded. I really don't know if that was a good idea.

Michael, list,

Whenever I hear the repeated (and repetitive) argument that Unicode doesn't
properly communicate and will destroy the grammatical structure of
Vedic/Assamese/Sinhala/etc., I always picture some classroom full of
children performing their copybook assignments over and over from The
Unicode Standard. "Today's assignment is block U+...". Those would be
pitiable kids indeed. If your script is encoded, do something useful with
it. Encode, preserve, transmit something meaningful. I'm transcribing 100
year old family documents, besides trying to make sure ICU/CLDR correctly
handle as many sociolinguistic preferences as possible. Your suggestion of
writing a children's book is an excellent one, that should perhaps be
considered as a FAQ answer.

If The Unicode Standard is the only document to explain how Sinhala,
Assamese, or any other language functions, that language is in some serious
trouble and has need of some good authors. It's like expecting a piano
factory to teach you the rules of harmony and composition.
Received on Tue Jul 10 2012 - 11:58:42 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 10 2012 - 11:58:44 CDT