On 10 January 2014 23:16, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> pravin.d.s_at_gmail.com said on Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:45:00PM +0530,:
> - Lohit 1 is supporting sequence (A) from long time (even before
> > Unicode 5.1), so for the backward compatibility lohit2 should support
> the
> > same.
> >
>
> I believe thet the UTC wanted to maintain compatibility with some
> _beta_ version of Microsoft's some software in making the choice that
> it did regarding the /nta/ sequence.
>
>
> > Presently i am in favour of not supporting Unicode defined
> > sequence (B) in lohit2 and keep on using (A) which is used in Lohit
> > fonts family from long time.
>
> Allow me to go on a nostalgia trip. Almost a decade back, the then SMC
> team came accross what was obvious lack of clarity in the UTS. They
> decided, against my advise, to follow the suggestions in OpenType
> definition. To be fair, then, I had no alternative to offer, except
> not to implement the suggestion in the OpenType pages. Microsoft
> ultimately waited for some clarity in the UTS before implementing
> anything. and the communimity efforts went (mostly) in vain.
>
I was wondering how ISCII was handling this.
>
> Right now, given a choice between supporting legacy data and
> standards, I will choose the latter, with some kind of jugaad based on
> the PUA / glyph name to enable support for legacy data.
>
Yeah, as said above will support both legacy and standard sequence.
>
> Not the ideal situation, but when politics get the uppoer hand over
> merits, efficiency and appropriateness always takes a backseat.
>
That is pain point of standardization activities.
Thanks & Regards,
Pravin Satpute
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Mon Jan 13 2014 - 00:30:15 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jan 13 2014 - 00:30:15 CST