Recommendation: accept the proposed action in section O of L2/08-205, to synchronize with Amendment 6.
Recommendation: accept 4 characters as documented in L2/08-196, page 5 (note the fix to the last name):
1CE9 VEDIC SIGN ANUSVARA ANTARGOMUKHA, annotation vaidika anusvaara antarmukha
1CEA VEDIC SIGN ANUSVARA BAHIRGOMUKHA, annotation vaidika anusvaara naagaphanna
1CEB VEDIC SIGN ANUSVARA VAMAGOMUKHA, annotation vaidika anusvaara vaamamukha
1CEC VEDIC SIGN ANUSVARA VAMAGOMUKHA WITH TAIL, annotation vaidika anusvaara vaamamukha sa-vakra
Recommendation: Regarding 1CF1 VEDIC SIGN ARDHAVISARGA, wait for further comments from Govt. of India, and in particular whether it is combining on the left or the right. If combining on the left, then consider the cases <ka, virama, ssa, sign i, ardhavisarga>, /kakza/, /kzipra/, and the analogy with U+0903.
We looked at three solutions:
| a | b | c | |
|---|---|---|---|
| e | 94E | 94E | 94E |
| ai | 9x1 | 9x1 = 94E, 947 | 94E, 947 |
| o | 9x2 | 9x2 = 94E, 93E | 94E, 93E |
| au | 9x3 | 9x3 = 94E, 94b | 94E, 94B |
Consensus: if b is chosen, then the NFC form is the single code point.
Consensus: if b or c is chosen, then 94E has canonical combining class 0 and comes first in representation
Consensus: whatever gets encoded should not go in the Devanagari block but in the Devanagari Extended block (A8F8...) or in the Vedic Extensions block
Consensus: 94E should have the curved form to distinguish it from 93E
Recommendation: wait for more input from Govt. of India to decide between a, b, c
The Govt. of India notes that U+0973 DEVANAGARI SIGN PUSHPIKA is used in Vedic texts only.
Question to examine, "Do manuscripts that are not Vedic (such as of Buddhist and Jain texts) use pushpika?" If so, then it would be appropriate to place pushpika in the Devanagari Extended block rather than the Vedic block.
The discussion was about the method to choose a block in which to place characters, with PUSHPIKA as a first case.
We did not come to a consensus, but outlined two approaches for the location of pushpika
This discussion applies to U+0973 DEVANAGARI SIGN PUSHPIKA, U+0979 DEVANAGARI LETTER ZHA, U+097A DEVANAGARI LETTER HEAVY YA.
Recommendation: remove the cross reference to Bengali ya; amend the current annotation to “used for an affricate glide, i.e. JJYA”
Recommendation: change glyph of U+0973 DEVANAGARI SIGN PUSHPIKA to match L2-08/196.
The Govt. of India asks to move U+0FD5 from the Tibetan block into the Devanagari Extended block and to rename it VAIDIKA SWASTIKA. No consensus on that.
Recommendation: Vaidika maatraakaal: L2/08-043, page 35, shows examples that look like regular danda. Ask for examples that demonstrate that maatraakaal is visually and functionally different from danda. Also determine whether it should be a combining mark; and its relation to U+A830 or U+A831.
Recommendation: move 1CF1 to 1CF2; encode U+1CF1 DEVANAGARI SIGN ANUSVARA UBHAYATOMUKHA, annotation vaidika anusvara ubhayatomukha
Recommendation: encode U+1CD4 VEDIC TONE YAJURVEDIC KASHMIRI SVARITA, annotation vaidika svarita urasi rekhaa
Recommendation: remand the proposed text for the Devanagari block description in L2/08-197 to the editorial committee and submit to the Govt. of India for review.
Recommendation: simplify of the annotation of U+02BC to used as a tone mark in Bodo, Dogri and Maithili
Recommendation: remand L2/08-192 to the Editorial Commitee.
Recommendation: encode the characters proposed in L2/08-181, noting that the character name for AA69 is incorrect in the names list but correct in the properties list.
Recommendation: taking L2/08-195 as a basis, ask the UTC members to provide a detailed critique that either supports this position or explains why it does not work (and presumably provide an alternative).
Recommendation: encode 0D29 MALAYALAM LETTER NNNA and 0D3A MALAYALAM LETTER TTTA as documented in L2/07-283.
Recommendation: accept the proposed action in section G of L2/08-205, to synchronize with Amendment 6.
Recommendation: respond to L2/08-136, pointing out the modifications which have been made to the original proposal to accommodate the concerns of L2/08-136, and to list institutions and user communities which need the historical characters.