U+0BA3, U+0BA9

From: Peter Jacobi (peter_jacobi@gmx.net)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 12:41:44 CST

Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Previous message: Michael Everson: "New contribution N2676"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Dear All,

Can someone clarify the status of
U+0BA3 TAMIL LETTER NNA and
U+0BA9 TAMIL LETTER NNNA

Comparing the glyph shapes with TSCII character tables
it is quite clear that U+0BA3 is NNNA and U+0BA9 is NNA.

This makes also a lot of sense for non-speakers of Tamil,
because it correctly correlates the number of 'N's
to the number of loops in the glyph.

I also got agreement from a local expert.

Now I'm wondering, why is there no Unicode Erratum on this?

Is it just because -for stability- character names are not allowed
to change even if incorrect? Or is it an oversight?

Regards,
Peter Jacobi
Hamburg, Germany

-- 
NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++

Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Previous message: Michael Everson: "New contribution N2676"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST