RE: Oriya: mba / mwa ?

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 15:39:57 EST

  • Next message: Deborah Goldsmith: "Re: How can I have OTF for MacOS"

    At 11:52 -0800 2003-12-01, Peter Constable wrote:

    > > Well, Peter, it's right there on the page.
    >
    >What page?

    Page 18 of Learn Oriya in 30 Days, what I have been quoting from.

    > > KA with Virama + BA = KWA,
    >> in Oriya and with Latin transliterations. It's a BA. I swear.
    >
    >And how do you know it's BA and not a distinct character that comes
    >after LLA?

    A distinct character coming after LLA that looks just like BA? I know
    it's a BA because I can *read*. The book has alphabet charts. No WA.
    No VA. As expected, because they are innovations. The book shows
    examples of the constituent parts of the conjuncts in their full
    form, and it's a BA.

    > > The revisionism would be in deciding that the innovated WA was to be
    >> used instead of BA. It isn't.
    >
    >But if there are people in India that think these conjuncts are
    >formed with WA, then there's an interop problem.

    You should implement according to what is on page 238 of the Unicode
    Standard, and if there are people in India who think otherwise they
    had better argue their case convincingly to the UTC.

    >I don't personally care which character is used.

    I *do*. Someone at the TDIL has decided he's got a bright idea about
    how to use WA, and that changes the traditional orthography.

    >I just need to worry about shipping an implementation that does one
    >thing and having users come back saying it doesn't do what they
    >expect, or it doesn't interoperate with other implementations they
    >need to work with.

    Well, I hope you are taking on board what I have been saying.

    -- 
    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 16:48:43 EST