I have gotten the answer on the question Michael raised about the glottal
stop: it does *not* have an inherent vowel.
So, given that, I return to the original question:
<quote>
The question is whether there is any problem using U+0294, and whether
proposing a Devanagari-specific character would be a better option. One
particular problem I can think would be likely to occur would be rendering
engines such as Uniscribe or whatever is coded into host environments like
Java for "Hindi" support would not be able to cope with U+0294 occuring in
the midst of a Devanagari sequence. E.g. I could easily imagine something
like Uniscribe failing to reorder U+093F before a glottal U+0294.
Should we try to educate and convince implementers of the need to allow
U+0294 to be reckoned as part of the Devanagari script, or should we
propose a new Devanagari glottal character?
(I guess on the principle of unifying across languages but not across
scripts, it could be argued that a new character should be proposed.)
</quote>
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
----- Forwarded by Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 03/07/2002 10:10 PM
-----
Jeff & LB Webster <jlbwebster@mail.com>
03/07/2002 08:59 PM
To: <Peter_Constable@sil.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: Devanagari variations
Peter,
I responded to Steve also, but the short answer is NO, the glottal has no
inherent vowel.
Jeff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Mar 08 2002 - 00:09:44 EST