From: N. Ganesan (naa.ganesan@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 15 2006 - 10:48:16 CST
>> The original Unicode specification is adequate to handle Chillus. There is
>> no need to encode the chillus separately. The proposal to encode that was
>> approved by Unicode some time back should be reconsidered and rejected just
>> as proposals to encode eye-lash ra for Devanagari was.
>> Vinod Kumar
Mahesh Pai:
>So, which code sequence should form chillus?
> cons + chandrakkala + zwj?
>or
>cons + chandrakkala?
I remember a suggestion from Antoine (Sept. 2005)
-------------------------
In fact, there are probably three, not two, cases to be distinguished for
end of words when there is no explicit vowel:
a) author wants 'pure' candrakkala
b) author wants samvṛtokāram
c) author does not care (including does not know there
is actually a difference, as Mahesh explained)
to be added to the still different case:
d) author wants cillakṣaram
It seems to me the b] case is covered when one explicitely uses the sequence
<u+0D41, u+0D4D>.
If we discard for the moment the introduction of new codepoints for the
cillus, we can still handle all the cases with the following distribution:
a] <u+0D4D, u+200C> (ZWJ)
b] <u+0D41, u+0D4D>
c] <u+0D4D> (present practice, BTW)
d] <u+0D4D, u+200D> (ZWNJ)
-------------------------------------------
N. Ganesan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 15 2006 - 10:54:40 CST