From: Peter Jacobi (peter_jacobi@gmx.net)
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 06:01:15 CST
Doug, Kenneth, All,
I', somewhat confused. I assume I'm lacking a lot
of background, but I can't interpolate successfully between
your answers:
"Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net> wrote:
> The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
> mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They expressly do *not*
> represent any form of transliteration or transcription scheme.
Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com> wrote:
> The 10646 naming conventions, which are stuck with A-Z for
> transliteration, generally use doubled letters to indicate
> retroflex consonants, particular for Indic languages. When
> a third distinction needs to be made, as for Tamil, the
> third name occasionally just gets a tripled letter, as is
> the case for U+0BA9.
Are UNICODE character names transliterations? Yes, No, Sometimes, Not
Officially?
Regards,
Peter Jacobi
-- 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! +++
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST