From: Sinnathurai Srivas (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 17:37:55 CST
1) Additional annotations to the name
2) Additions to the FAQ
3) Additions to the standard's text on implementing Tamil
Answering the above,
1) I'll work on annotating.
2) Will look at FAQ
3) You may be surprised to hear, tamil Unicode is already implemented to a
It is Unicode that is largely not implemented yet!
No Graphic softwares available. Tamil will not be moved to Tamil Unicode,
till Graphic software support is given.
There is this problem of Lingering Aytham and dotted circle. Tamil Unicode
will not be adopted till history over write this already resolved problem.
There is no "Ohm" support. Printers do not like mixed Unicode and 8bit, when
8bit gives full support, while Unicode keep fighting about what to give and
what not to give.
Yahoo mail and groups does not support Unicode. Google groups does not
support Unicode. Webmails probably not supporting Unicode.
8bit is supported for any thing you can name. Though 8bit email works, it
may be bit fiddly to overcome hurdles.
There are tamil unicode fonts. But there is no demand. So the pool of Tamil
Unicode fonts not increasing. This is problem with unicode and not Tamil
unicode. It is 5 more than 5 years since working tamil unicode fonts were
published. But they are not usable in the mrket. Has some one look at the
issues in detail?
Tamil Unicode is ready to swing into action. We will continue to target for
the swing opportunity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John H. Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Unicode" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Tamil 0B83: Tamil Aytham and Devanagari VisargaL
> On Apr 1, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
>> It calls Aytham as VisargaL.
> Well, the charts actually say U+0B83 is called TAMIL SIGN VISARGA with a
> notation "= aytham".
> It may be appropriate to make this clearer to casual users, but again,
> Unicode character names are not intended to be descriptive. They are
> intended to be unique. Considerable effort has gone into making them
> descriptive, but mistakes have been made which cannot now be fixed.
> U+0B83 is not the only character to thus suffer.
>> It is wrong. It is technically wrong. It does not do what Visarga migt
>> do! It is not Visarga. It breaks Unicode implementations, because of
>> it's untru descriptive name.
> Anyone who implements Unicode based on the names of characters is not
> implementing the standard correctly. Again, U+0B83 is not unique in this
> regard. Unicode is more than a collection of glyphs in charts or names
> of characters.
>> It is an insult to a suffering minority language.
> It is certainly not intended as an insult, any more than the standard's
> failure to encode "ff" and "ll" as separate characters is intended as an
> insult to Welsh. The insult would rather lie with those who don't care
> enough about Tamil to learn how to implement it properly in Unicode.
> I realize that this is an issue about which you care passionately, and
> your passionate devotion to the correct implementation of Tamil does you
> credit. But please understand that character renaming simply is not an
> option at this point in the standard's history. If you wish to provide
> constructive suggestions, then among the things which *can* be done are:
> 1) Additional annotations to the name
> 2) Additions to the FAQ
> 3) Additions to the standard's text on implementing Tamil
> John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 17:38:42 CST