From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2003 - 16:16:14 EST
At 12:33 -0800 2003-12-21, Peter Kirk wrote:
>>Nonsense. Of course you can. KA is KA is KA is KA and BHA is BHA is
>>BHA is BHA. The *reading rules* for pronouncing what's been written
>>differ, but the transliteration is by and large one-to-one. Tamil
>>of course is an exception, having lost some consonants.
>
>Michael, in view of this do you think it might be sensible to treat
>the different Indic scripts as equivalent for collation purposes?
No, not at all. Not in the default template. The default template
sorts scripts separately.
>This might be especially useful with a corpus of material in one
>language e.g. Sanskrit but using different scripts.
Actually I rather think it would form a list which was an
outrageously illegible mess.
>And then, how about the Semitic scripts? After all, ALEF is ALEF is
>ALEF is ALEF and ...
Nope. It would also be an outrageously illegible mess. But you can
tailor it locally if you wanted to.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 21 2003 - 16:52:01 EST