Re: Alternative encodings for Malayalam “nta”

Have you submitted that response as a UTC document?
A./

On 10/6/2019 2:08 PM, Cibu wrote:
> Thanks for addressing this. Here is my response:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6L82VRmCGc9Fb4AOitNk4MT7Nu4V8aKUJo_1mW5X1o/
>
> In summary, my take is:
>
> The sequence <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> for ൻ്റ (<<chillu N, subscript RRA>>)
> should not be legitimized as an alternate encoding; but should be
> recognized as a prevailing non-standard legacy encoding.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:57 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <lianghai_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:lianghai_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> (Microsoft Peter and Andrew, search for “Windows” in the document.)
>
> (Asmus, in the document there’s a section 5, /ICANN RZ-LGR
> situation/—let me know if there’s some news.)
>
> This is a pretty straightforward document about the notoriously
> problematic encoding of Malayalam </chillu n/, bottom-side sign of
> /rra/>. I always wanted to properly document this, so finally here
> it is:
>
> L2/19-345
> <http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetMatchingDocs.pl?L2/19-345>
> *Alternative encodings for Malayalam "nta"*
> Liang Hai
> 2019-10-06
>
>
> Unfortunately, as <NA, VIRAMA, RRA> has already become the de
> facto standard encoding, now we have to recognize it in the Core
> Spec. It’s a bit like another Tamil /srī/ situation.
>
> An excerpt of the proposal:
>
> Document the following widely used encoding in
> the Core Specification as an alternative representation for
> Malayalam [glyph] (<chillu n, bottom-side sign of rra>) that
> is a special case and does not suggest any productive rule in
> the encoding model:
>
> <U+0D28 ന MALAYALAM LETTER NA, U+0D4D ◌് MALAYALAM SIGN
> VIRAMA, U+0D31 റ MALAYALAM LETTER RRA>
>
>
> Best,
> 梁海 Liang Hai
> https://lianghai.github.io
>
Received on Sun Oct 06 2019 - 17:03:25 CDT