From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 17:10:26 EST
.
Michael Everson wrote,
> 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.
The TDIL document was published in April of 2002. At that time,
page 238 of TUS 4.0 did not exist. The authors of the Oriya section
of the report really only had the sparse information on page 227 of
TUS 3.0 upon which to expand.
Perhaps many of us on this list have, in the past, attempted to
exptrapolate the direction the consortium might take -- only to
be surprised when a different path is chosen.
Other than the fine work by Maurice Bauhahn on Khmer, the existence
of these comprehensive TDIL reports written by technically-oriented
expert members of the script user communities who also are familiar
with computer encoding issues *and Unicode* appears to be unprecedented.
We should rejoice that these TDIL reports exist and urge the
various authors to contribute to discussions on any edge-case
issues.
Rather than revising history or revising encoding practices, maybe
the TDIL reports could be revised where appropriate.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 18:05:24 EST