Fwd: Re: Continue: Glaring mistake in the code list for South Asian Script//Reply to Kent Karlsson

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: delex r <delexr_at_indiatimes.com>
To: Christopher Fynn <chris.fynn_at_gmail.com>
Cc: unicode_at_unicode.org
Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:49:24 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: Continue: Glaring mistake in the code list for South Asian Script//Reply to Kent Karlsson

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Fynn <chris.fynn_at_gmail.com>
To: delex r <delexr_at_indiatimes.com>, Unicode List <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:33:29 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: Continue: Glaring mistake in the code list for South Asian Script//Reply to Kent Karlsson

Delex

Nobody's saying Unicode is perfect, but it works.

Please realize that whatever "mistakes" you find in the standard,
Unicode is not going to change the way it has encoded Indic scripts,
the names it has given these scripts / writing systems, or the names
of individual characters. A Character Encoding Standard would hardly
be a useable standard if these things changed over time.

The time to have suggested things be done differently, or that
different names be used, was many years ago when the Indic scripts
were first being included in the UCS. Why did no authority from India
complain at the time?

If you have real problems with the way Unicode has encoded the
characters in Indic scripts, and you think it can be done better, you
are of course welcome to create your own character encoding where e.g.
each of the letters in all of the 1652+ mother tongues of India is
encoded separately and then try and get people to adopt your "better"
system as standard.

Good luck to you.

- C

Dear Fynn , your this query
>Why did no authority from India complain at the time?

Can definitely be answered if you/or Unicode provide some cognizable information on actually what authority or department from India/Bangladesh suggested that the script and the entire set of letters be named as BENGALI rejecting even the need of giving a common name acceptable to both the societies disclaiming pseudo ownership.They showed their indifferent attitude towards factual genesis of the script. If it was from India then I may be able to answer your query about what went wrong here in india during 1990s, after and before.

>you are of course welcome to create your own character encoding where >e.g.each of the letters in all of the 1652+ mother tongues of India is
>encoded separately........

I can count that even Unicode has not or needed not to encode too many of them as well probably because of the fact ( you better know) few of them actually can boast of having their own script.You may realise(if you wish to) what harm Unicode is doing by publising Assamese as Scriptless language like English,French,Bodo etc which are using borrowed script.

>and you think it can be done better.......then try and get people to >adopt your "better"system as standard.

I dont think I am going to tell about my "better" standard in this public mail list and become the victim of the plagiarists. There is always a " better" thing to happen or evolve. See even Einsten is being questioned now a days in mankind's everlasting search of faster and truer things!

Regards

DR
Received on Thu Nov 03 2011 - 10:24:54 CDT