Re: [unicode] Telugu Unicode Encoding Review

Date: Sun Oct 17 2010 - 00:55:25 CDT

  • Next message: Frédéric Grosshans: "Re: Telugu Unicode Encoding Review"

    I'm sorry for my comment is about only one item in the
    comments for Telugu encoding. Other items are also
    interesting (e.g. Telugu digits in Unicode are not
    taught in the schools).

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:49:07 -0700
    Asmus Freytag <> wrote:
    > On 10/16/2010 10:38 AM, suzuki toshiya wrote:
    >> I've never heard any comments about the reservation
    >> of the codepoints to making the code chart structure
    >> similar among multiple script, no posive, no negative.
    >The source for this arrangement is an Indian National Standard.

    >The important thing to remember is that when Unicode was first created,
    >it was seen as very important to mimic the layout of 8-bit character
    >sets for a given script - at least for those scripts that had fairly
    >well established standards in the 80s.

    Yes I know. The design of the reserved codepoints was
    decided by ISCII, not by Unicode, not by ISO/IEC JTC1
    /SC2/WG2. It was reasonable to make existing ISCII and
    ISO/IEC 10646 similar, to reduce the smooth interchange
    of them, at that time.

    For the standardization expert, even if one thinks
    the sparse insertion of the reserved codepoints in
    ISO/IEC 10646 as bad idea, he would agree with that
    keeping the same structure with ISCII is better than
    the incompatible structure. In fact, the structures
    of Indic scripts unencoded in ISCII are incompatible
    with Devanagari (e.g. Lepcha, Limbu, Meitei Mayak,
    Ol Chiki, ...).

    Anyway, I've never heard any comments about the
    reserved codepoints in the Brahmic scripts from
    the end user, I want to hear what they are recognized,
    and, if they are recognized useless, anybody want
    to use the reserved codepoints for other characters etc.
    As you know, in CJK fonts, often reserved codepoints
    are used for user-defined/extended characters and
    caused many troubles in the information interchange.

    >While this seems quaint now, it did make it easier for people to become
    >comfortable with Unicode - and to be able to tell quickly and reliably
    >whether important character sets were fully covered. Without that,
    >Unicode might never have established itself - as unbelievable as that
    >may sound to those who did not experience that transition period first hand.

    I have no objection about this view.


    >> Kiran Kumar Chava wrote (2010/10/17 2:06):
    >>> Hi,
    >>> At the link, , I tried to
    >>> understand
    >>> Telugu Unicode encoding and then I tried to do an out of box review
    >>> of this
    >>> encoding. Kindly let me know if I am missing something, mentioned as
    >>> missing
    >>> in above article are really missing or not. Any other views...
    >>> Thanks in advance,
    >>> Kiran Kumar Chava

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 17 2010 - 01:00:06 CDT