From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 13:24:07 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On Behalf
> Your suggestion that NYA could be involved is less plausible.
I didn't actually suggest it was nya; I merely pointed out that the same
shape is used for more than /o/.
> >I still haven't seen clear evidence; only an assertion of the former
> >based on a hypothesis that, granted, is certainly plausible.
>
> I cited examples already:
>
> k. + ba (wa) = kwa
Your examples do not constitute clear evidence: the question is whether
the characters underlying /kwa/ are k + ba or k + something else, and
what you have written has to be taken either as presupposing the answer
(thus not eligible as evidence) or as ambiguous -- either it is ba or it
is wa.
> I think we should avoid revisionist encodings, which will make it
> impossible to deal with older data.
Revisionist encodings? If the encoding is getting implemented for the
first time, one can hardly talk of revisionist encodings. But this is a
good question: are there Oriya implementation precedents? How were these
conjuncts handled in ISCII and is there an official mapping between
ISCII and Unicode for these sequences?
> >I was hoping there might be some Indian -- Oriyan -- implementers or
> >users lurking that might want to comment. If not, then there's not
> >much more to say on this topic here. I'll try elsewhere;
>
> I did order dictionaries so that I can help you.
Most kind. I asked for details about the dictionaries, but I don't think
you replied to that.
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 14:07:49 EST