Re: Tamil 0B83: Tamil Aytham and Devanagari VisargaL

From: Sinnathurai Srivas (sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 31 2005 - 16:09:32 CST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Version 4.1 of the Unicode Standard Released"

    I'm investigating and INFITT did ask for corrections. It was given quarter
    truth corrections.

    No one is happy with fault in " Continuity policy"

    On this point INFITT do not want to get into argument with UC. That is true.
    I'm not speaking on behalf of INFITT on the matter of continuty ploicy.

    Let's go to the point.

    Do not probagate untrue messages as part of continuation policy.

    LET US FIND A PROPER OPERATING MODE for this problem.

    Sinnathurai Srivas
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <michka@trigeminal.com>
    To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
    Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:50 PM
    Subject: Re: Tamil 0B83: Tamil Aytham and Devanagari VisargaL

    > FYI to all:
    >
    > Srivas does not speak for INFITT (in fact WG02 INFITT does not as a body
    > agree with his current assessments of the Visarga/Aytham issue, and do not
    > see any insult in the current plan that Unicode has or the work that has
    > been done).
    >
    > Just so you know that he is speaking for himself and *not* for INFITT.
    >
    >
    > MichKa [Microsoft]
    > NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
    > Liaison between Unicode to and from INFITT
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Sinnathurai Srivas" <sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk>
    > To: "James Kass" <jameskass@att.net>; "Avarangal" <avarangal@hotmail.com>;
    > <unicode@unicode.org>
    > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:44 AM
    > Subject: Re: Tamil 0B83: Tamil Aytham and Devanagari VisargaL
    >
    >
    >> Thank you James,
    >>
    >> Thank you for the reply.
    >> It is insulting Tamil, that is what the description does.
    >> VisargaL is not Aytham, but Uncode's PRIMARY definition of Aytham is
    >> VisargaL.
    >> Developers continue to make mistake and break Unicode implementations.
    >> Continue to break Unicode implementations.
    >>
    >> Dear UC,
    >>
    >> It is not my intention to write against UC, but I have to write.
    >>
    >> You must speak the truth not otherwise.
    >> You must clearly state that we made mistake and correcting it and that
    > must
    >> be the definition of Aytham.
    >> You must be courageous enough tp own up and then keep the "guarantee of
    >> stability in the standard" by describing correctly, by describing with
    >> sincereity.
    >>
    >> For example,
    >> Do not decsribe Aytham as VisargaL.
    >> Describe Aytham as "Mistakingly defined as Visarga in the past and is now
    >> corrected to Aytham"
    >> Please describe accurately and keep the stability policy to match
    > accuracy.
    >>
    >> How do one write a proposal to amend stability policy?
    >>
    >> Regards
    >> Sinnathurai Srivas
    >>
    >> >>
    >> James Kass wrote,
    >>
    >> > TAMIL LETTER VISARGA (U+0B83)
    >>
    >> Of course, I should have typed "TAMIL SIGN VISARGA".
    >>
    >> > It is because of a guarantee of stability in the standard. Once a
    >> > character has been named, the name should never be changed.
    >>
    >> And, I should have indicated that the name should never be changed
    >> after it has been officially published as part of the standard. That's
    >> one good reason why proposed additions take a while to get included --
    >> there's a review period for the public to catch mistakes. Catching
    >> mistakes before publishing is always nice...
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >>
    >> James Kass
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "James Kass" <jameskass@att.net>
    >> To: "Avarangal" <avarangal@hotmail.com>; <unicode@unicode.org>
    >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:15 AM
    >> Subject: Re: Tamil 0B83: Tamil Aytham and Devanagari VisargaL
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Sinnathurai Srivas asks:
    >> >
    >> >> My question is
    >> >>
    >> >> 1/ What is the definition of Visarga
    >> >
    >> > TAMIL LETTER VISARGA (U+0B83) has the same character properties as
    >> > TAMIL LETTER KA (U+0B95). Both are "Lo" (Letter Other) and both have
    >> > combining class zero. In the notes which are in the detail associated
    >> > with the Unicode character charts, TAMIL LETTER VISARGA is given an
    >> > alias of "aytham" - which means the standard considers the character
    >> > named TAMIL LETTER VISARGA to be the Tamil aytham.
    >> >
    >> > The DEVANAGARI SIGN VISARGA, in contrast, is not classed as "Lo", but
    >> > rather it is classed as "Mc" (Mark, spacing combining).
    >> >
    >> >> 2/ Why Aytham is still called VisargaL?
    >> >
    >> > It is because of a guarantee of stability in the standard. Once a
    >> > character has been named, the name should never be changed. There are
    >> > a few mistakes which are in the standard and can't be fixed. One of
    >> > the
    >> > most well-known mistakes concerns a Gothic script letter, the name in
    > the
    >> > standard actually has a typographical error.
    >> >
    >> >> 3/ Do I need to write about the definition of Aytham and how it may
    >> >> not
    >> >> be
    >> >> VisargaL at all.
    >> >
    >> > If some applications still treat aytham as a combining character
    >> > instead
    >> > of
    >> > a spacing character, then it might be necessary to contact the
    >> > designers
    >
    >> > of
    >> > the specific applications. Sometimes updates are slow.
    >> >
    >> > Best regards,
    >> >
    >> > James Kass
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 31 2005 - 16:11:31 CST